Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N.V. Ramona Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 10 November, 2020
Author: M.Venkata Ramana
Bench: M.Venkata Ramana
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA
WRIT PETITION Nos. 16177 & 17971 of 2020
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioners 1 and 2 in W.P.No.16177 of 2020 are Deputy Executive Engineers in Panchayat Raj Department and whereas, the 3rd petitioner is a Deputy Executive Engineer in Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, at different places. Aggrieved with reference to fixing their seniority in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer, in state wide seniority list, the relief requested by them in this Writ Petition is as follows:
"To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, declaring:
(a) the action of the 2nd respondent herein in issuing the State-wide Integrated Seniority vide Memo No.G.Section/ 9622/2013 dated 30.06.2020 and Memo No.G.Section/9622/2013 dated 27.08.2020 without considering the representations submitted by the petitioners herein and Government Memo(s) on protection of petitioners' seniority in Zone-IV as assured in G.O.Ms.No.397 dated PR&RD (Est-III) Dept dt.23.10.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, vindictive, null and void and violation of Articles 14,16,21 of the Constitution of India and opposed to very spirit and object of the service jurisprudence;
(b) the action of the 1st respondent herein in issuing promotions vide G.O.Ms.No.660 dt. 31.08.2020 to the juniors of petitioners from Zone-IV without considering the representations submitted by the petitioners herein and without obtaining report from the 2nd respondent as called in Memo(s) as illegal, arbitrary, vindictive, null and void and violation of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;
(c) the action of the respondents 1 to 5 herein in not considering the representations dt.18.02.2020, 22.07.2020, 05.08.2020 and 31.08.2020, is illegal, arbitrary, vindictive, null and void and violation of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
2. The respondents 6 to 15 got themselves impleaded in this writ petition as per orders in I.A.No.3 of 2020, dated 09.10.2020. They filed W.P.No.17971 of 2020, without impleading the petitioners in W.P.No.16177 of 2020, requesting the following relief:
MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 2 "to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 2265 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the respondents is not issuing the consequential orders of promotion and posting to the petitioners in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.660, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department dated 31.08.2020 issued by the 21st respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, malafide, unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue consequential direction directing the respondents to forthwith issue consequential orders of promotion and posting to the petitioners in the cadre of Executive Engineer in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.660, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department dated 31.08.2020 with effect from the date of availability of vacancies in the cadre of Executive Engineers for the panel year 2019-2020. "
3. Since both the matters are intimately connected and issues covering both of them are same and similar, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties in common in both these Writ Petitions, they are being disposed of, by this common order.
4. The parties as arrayed in W.P.No.16177 of 2020 are referred to hereinafter, for convenience. The respondents in W.P.No.17971 of 2020 are respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.No.16177 of 2020.
5. The petitioners, the respondents 6 to 15 and several others were recruited and appointed through State Engineering Service Examination conducted by APPSC. They belong to different batches of the years 1986 to 1989. By this process of recruitment, not only for the purpose of Panchayat Raj Department (for short, PR Department) but also for the purpose of R&B, Irrigation and Public Health Departments, engineers were recruited. The initial appointment for all of them was Assistant Executive Engineer (then Junior Engineer).
6. A Separate Department for the purpose of Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (For short, RWS&S Department) was created separating from Panchayat Raj Engineering Department w.e.f. 01.04.2008. The petitioners 1 and 2 and the respondents 6 to 15, apparently, continued in MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 3 Panchayat Raj Department and whereas the 3rd petitioner opted to serve RWS&S Department. The Zonal system was in vogue then on account of the Presidential Order of 1975. Through the process of recruitment of APPSC, the petitioners were allotted to Zone-IV in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. The respondents 6 to 15 claim that their initial appointment was in Zone-IV and where they continued to work. They were all promoted on different dates to the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer (then, Assistant Engineer).
7. The 1st petitioner joined in PR Department, on 30.03.1989, in Zone-IV. The 2nd petitioner also joined the same Department, on 18.03.1989, in the same Zone. Whereas the 3rd petitioner joined in the same Department on 29.03.1989 in the same Zone. The petitioners 1 to 3 were promoted as Deputy Executive Engineers on 31.03.2003, 23.12.1997 and 23.12.1997 respectively.
8. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, issuing G.O.Ms.No.397, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Estt.III) Department, dated 23.10.2008, applying G.O.Ms.No.674, General Administration (MC-I) Department, dated 07.09.2007, and G.O.Ms.No.610, General Administration (SPF-A) Department, dated 30.12.1985, repatriated certain employees to their native zones, in its implementation. The petitioners, who were then in Zone-IV, being natives of Zone-III, were repatriated to the said Zone, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.397. By the date of their repatriation, they were already promoted up to the level of Deputy Executive Engineers. Though the said G.O. was issued on 23.10.2008, for various reasons including pendency of certain applications before A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Writ Petitions in then composite High Court at MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 4 Hyderabad and certain matters in Hon'ble Supreme Court, it appears that its implementation was got delayed. Ultimately, the Government issued instructions to move all the repatriated employees to their respective local zones by Memo No.4846/Estt.III/A2/2009-20, dated 10.01.2013. Thus, the petitioners went to Zone-III. In the affidavit in the writ petition, it is stated that the 2nd and the 3rd petitioner were directed to proceed to their new zone by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 28.01.2013.
9. The petitioners 2 and 3 filed Original application in A.P. Administrative Tribunal, questioning G.O.Ms.No.397, dated 23.12.2008. However, it was dismissed. The 3rd petitioner filed a Writ Petition questioning the orders of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, which was considered in Writ Petitions nos. 13273 of 2012 and batch. They were dismissed on 21.11.2012 admittedly by then High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
10. It is the contention of the petitioners that seniority list, once prepared by the 5th respondent-Public Service Commission cannot be changed and if it is to be altered, permission from Public Service Commission is necessary either for the purpose of seniority or change in Roster Points. Same is the situation, according to the petitioners, to shift the candidate from one zone to another. The petitioners complained that while shifting them from Zone-IV to Zone-III, no such permission was obtained from Public Service Commission or to change Roster Points as well as seniority. Thus, the petitioners contended that in as much as the list relating to their seniority as well as Roster Points prepared by A.P. Public Service Commission was not changed, which became final, it is still MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 5 in force. The petitioners further contended that basing on the above list of Public Service Commission; they were promoted as Deputy Executive Engineers, in Zone-IV, prior to implementation of G.O.Ms.No.397, dated 23.10.2008. They also contended that since they were appointed towards vacancies available for non-local candidates, their repatriation to Zone-III itself is bad.
11. Referring to various orders issued by the 2nd respondent since the year 2013, fixing the seniority among the Graduate Deputy Executive Engineers till 27.08.2020, complaining that their seniority was not properly reckoned nor considered in terms of original seniority settled by Public Service Commission, they requested now, to change their seniority from their initial appointment as Assistant Executive Engineers, following the seniority fixed by the Public Service Commission. They are given seniority during the panel year 2004-05 in Memo No. G. Section/ 9622/2013, dated 27.08.2020, placing them at serial Nos.759, 761 and 762 as AEEs in Zone- III. Both of them are now impugned in this Writ petition.
12. The complaint of the petitioners further is that the 2nd respondent did not consider the effect of G.O.Ms.No.397, dated 23.10.2008, which protected their seniority since their transfer from Zone- IV to Zone-III was made in public interest. They further contended that that this action of the 2nd respondent also violates Rules 33 to 35 of A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules, particularly having regard to the fact that their transfer was in Public Interest and that even the Presidential Order did not direct that the seniority of those repatriated to a different Zone be fixed in a particular manner.
MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 6
13. In this process, they also complained that the respondents 6 to 15, have had the benefit of getting promoted as Executive Engineers and that, it works out a differential treatment between themselves on one hand and the respondents 6 to 15 on the other, which is impermissible being discriminatory.
14. The petitioners further contended that though they are entitled to be placed in the seniority list in the panel year 1998-99 at S.Nos.535,530 and 557 respectively, the action of the respondents 1 and 2 is a manifest illegality in placing them later, in the panel year 2004-05.
15. Thus, the petitioners assail the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting their contention on the ground that the matter was already settled earlier due to implementation of Presidential Order, in view of Para-5(2)(c) of the same and which cannot be reviewed.
16. Thus, in effect, the petitioners' request is to protect their seniority applying G.O.Ms.No.397, dated 23.10.2008, in their favour. The petitioners also contended that they gave many representations dated 18.02.2020, 22.07.2020, 05.08.2020, 31.08.2020, 12.06.2019, 12.06.2019 and 20.09.2019, setting out their grievance for re-arrangement of their seniority and which, according to them were not attended to. They also complained that in respect of the memos issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent on 16.12.2019, 12.03.2020 and 24.06.2020, though a specific report was called for, the 2nd respondent without attending to, has directly issued State-wide Integrated Seniority List by Memo No.G.Section/ 9622/2013, dated 27.08.2020.
MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 7
17. In that process, they also questioned the proposed promotion of the respondents 6 to 15, particularly pointing out the directions of this Court in W.P.No.18606 of 2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019, dated 25.11.2019, and the order of Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.40432 of 2018, dated 29.04.2019.
18. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, a counter-affidavit is filed by the present incumbent in office, resisting the claim of the petitioners. It is asserted in this counter-affidavit that the seniority of the petitioners stood protected specifically following G.O.Ms.No.397, dated 23.10.2008. It is the further contention of the 2nd respondent that the petitioners and the respondents 6 to 15 stand on different footing, in as much as the respondents 6 to 15 belong to Zone-IV from the beginning, whose seniority was never a matter of disturbance or interference and whereas the petitioners were transferred to Zone-III from Zone-IV, who were placed last in the seniority list of the particular year of the same batch.
19. Thus, the 2nd respondent supported their action in determining the seniority of the petitioners pointing out that in between the years 2013 and 2019-2020, when different seniority lists were prepared for various panel years, except on the last occasion, no objections were raised by the petitioners with reference to fixing the seniority. The 2nd respondent justified fixing the seniority of the petitioners for the panel year 2004-05, basing on the Presidential Order. The 2nd respondent also questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that affected parties viz., the respondents 6 to 15 were not added as parties to this Writ Petition and thus claimed that the writ petition so filed is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 8
20. Another objection raised by the 2nd respondent is that there is any amount of delay in raising this issue by the petitioners and that, this delay defeats their claim.
21. While referring to the circumstances under which G.O.Ms.No.660, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (E.I) Department, dated 31.08.2020 was issued empanelling 17 Executive Engineers in their department for the purpose of promotion as Executive Engineers for the panel year 2019-2020 and that 14 of them are required to be given postings, it is contended for the 2nd respondent that the Writ Petition, as such, is not maintainable.
22. The respondents 6 to 15 relied on the averments in the affidavit of 6th respondent in I.A.No.4 of 2020 resisting this Writ petition, by which the interim order granted on 10.09.2020 is sought to be vacated.
23. The predominant contention of the respondents 6 to 15 is that, since they being the affected parties, as they have not been made respondents to the present writ petition, it is bad as such. Thus, they contended that on this sole ground the writ petition should be dismissed. Referring to the circumstances as to determining their seniority, they supported the contention of the 2nd respondent. They stated that their seniority is fixed in Zone-IV since they belonged to this Zone from the beginning. They further pointed out that, on many earlier occasions when seniority lists were released for different panel years, no objections were raised by the petitioners and further contended that the respondents 6 to 15 were initially appointed in between the years 1986 and 1989 in the MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 9 composite State of Andhra Pradesh, who were promoted as Deputy Executive Engineers.
24. The respondents 6 to 15 further contended that after bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh, by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 14.05.2018, a revised confirmed State-wide Integrated Seniority List of Graduate Executive Engineers was issued, upon considering the objections relating to provisional State-wide Integrated Seniority List and which became final. By virtue of this proceedings, according to these respondents, the services of the Deputy Executive Engineers who were promoted, were regularized up to 31.08.2002 in respective Zones.
25. The respondents 6 to 15 further contended that basing on the above seniority list, a panel for the purpose of promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineer was prepared for panel year 2018-2019 and certain individuals were also promoted by issuing different G.Os. by the 1st respondent. According to them, the petitioners did not choose to question the above seniority list nor anyone.
26. The respondents 6 to 15 further contended that, similarly for the panel year 2019-2020, a final seniority list was prepared after considering the objections to the Provisional Seniority List, basing on which, the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended certain Deputy Executive Engineers viz., themselves and others for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer whereby the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.660, dated 31.08.2020.
MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 10
27. These respondents further contended that there is no inter se grievance or dispute in any manner much less with reference to seniority between themselves and the petitioners. They also questioned parity sought by the petitioners, who belonged to Zone-III and those of similar cadre in Zone-IV. They further contended that it is the obligation of the petitioners to implead all those who are affected, for grant of relief.
28. With reference to nature of reliefs sought, these respondents also contended that, in as much as no consequential relief is sought, these reliefs as such cannot be granted. Thus urging, these respondents sought the dismissal of the writ petition.
29. By an interim order dated 10.08.2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in this writ petition, it was directed that there shall be no further action pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.660, dated 31.08.2020, including issue of promotions thereby. It was extended by orders till 14.10.2020.
30. Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. J. Sumathi, learned Government Pleader for Services-II, and Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the respondents 6 to 15, addressed arguments with reference to their respective stands in this writ petition.
31. Now, the points for determination are:
1. Whether seniority of the petitioners from the stage of Assistant Executive Engineers and later Deputy Executive Engineers be recast or re-arranged, following G.O.Ms.No.397, dated 23.10.2008 and if orders in Memo No. G.Section/9622/2013 as well as Memo No.G.Section/ 9622/2013, dated 27.08.2020 be set aside?
2. Whether G.O.Ms.No.660, dated 31.08.2020, issued by the 1st respondent to promote the respondents 6 to 15 is proper and if be set aside?
MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 11 POINT No.1:
32. The process of appointment of the petitioners, respondents 6 to 15 and others of different batches through APPSC examination is not in dispute. The petitioners contended that when they were appointed in Zone-IV towards non-local quota, appointment of others in local quota was not in any manner affected.
33. Zone-III has Guntur, Prakasam and Nellore Districts. Zone-IV has Kurnool, Ananthapuram, Kadapa and Chittoor Districts.
34. However, finding that the petitioners are natives of Zone-III, they were transferred to this Zone from Zone-IV as already stated, in implementation of G.O.Ms.No.397, dated 23.10.2008. Transferring them from Zone-III to Zone-IV was subjected to litigation, which became final. It is not, therefore, now open for the petitioners to contend that change of Zone is not proper, while asserting that they were recruited towards non-local quota in Zone-IV. Nonetheless, their promotions to the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineers were also effected while they were working in Zone-IV.
35. The undisputed fact is that the petitioners were placed at Serial Nos.45, 41 and 59 respectively and whereas Sri V.V.M.Krishnama Naidu, Sri M. Siva Prasad and Sri M.Ravanaiah of the same 1989 batch were placed at serial Nos.50,43 and 62 respectively in original seniority list prepared by Public Service Commission. The latter three were allotted to Zone-IV and continued to work in the same zone in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineers. Their presence in Zone-IV is not on account of repatriation from any other zone including Zone-III. The petitioners MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 12 contended that respondents 6 to 15 are also of the same batch of 1989, who are sought to be promoted now, upon issuing G.O.Ms.No.660, dated 31.08.2020. But, the respondents 6 to 15 claim that they belong to different batches of the years 1986 to 1989. The version of the petitioners is that unmindful of their repatriation to Zone-III, their seniority should be settled and protected in Zone-III in consonance with their placement in Zone-IV.
36. The 2nd respondent justified its action in placing them last in the seniority list of Zone-III upon their repatriation relying on para-5(2)
(c) of the Presidential Order, 1975.
37. It is desirable to extract para-5 of Presidential Order hereunder, for benefit:
5. Local Cadres and Transfer of Persons: - (1) Each part of the State, for which a local cadre has been organized in respect of any category of posts, shall be a separate unit for purposes of recruitment, appointment discharge, seniority, promotion and transfer, and such other matters as may be specified by the State Government, in respect of that category of posts.
(2) Nothing in this order shall prevent the State Government from making provision for -
(a) the transfer of a person from any local cadre to any office or Establishment to which this Order does not apply, or Vice Versa.
(b) the transfer of a person from local cadre comprising posts in any Office or Establishment exercising territorial jurisdiction over a part of the State to any other local cadre comprising posts in such part, or Vice Versa.
(c) the transfer of a person from one local cadre to another local cadre where no qualified or suitable person is available in the latter cadre or where such transfer is otherwise considered necessary in the public interest.
(d) the transfer of a person from one local cadre to another local cadre on a reciprocal basis, subject to the condition that the persons so transferred shall be assigned seniority in the latter cadre with reference to the date of his transfer to that cadre."
MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 13
38. Para-5(2) (c) did not in any manner suggest that a person transferred to other zone in public interest should be assigned last number in the seniority list in the transferred zone. However, in terms of Para 5(2) (d), when a transfer is sought on reciprocal basis by a person, he shall be assigned seniority in the transferred zone with reference to the date of his transfer to that cadre.
39. As rightly contended for the petitioners, this justification of the 2nd respondent placing them in last numbers in the seniority list in the transferred zone i.e. Zone-III did not have legal sanction. The 2nd respondent did not produce any other material to support its stand except stating that this issue was settled long ago basing on Para 5(2) (c) of the Presidential Order, 1975.
40. The petitioners ought to have questioned placing them in last numbers in Zonal seniority list after their repatriation to Zone-III from Zone-IV. They raised this question at a highly belated stage when they are nearing superannuation. They did not challenge such assignment of last positions in seniority immediately after repatriation to Zone III or when they came to know their places in the seniority. It is further to be noted that the manner in which Para-5(2) (c) of the Presidential Order was applied to their cases in Zone-III, placing them last in the seniority, is not pleaded specifically in this writ petition.
41. It is not known whether such question was addressed or raised, when they filed original applications in the then A.P. Administrative Tribunal or by the 3rd petitioner, in the connected writ petition, before common High Court at Hyderabad. The question relating to application of MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 14 para-5 of the Presidential Order indeed was considered in W.P.No.13273 of 2012 and batch. Admittedly, the 3rd petitioner is a party to one of the writ petitions, in this batch. It is also not known whether they have raised such a question in later Writ Petition No.18606 of 2018.
42. Once the petitioners stood repatriated to Zone III from Zone IV albeit in public interest, by legal fiction, they are deemed allotted to Zone III from the date of their appointment as Assistant Executive Engineers. Having had come to zone-III from zone-IV, where they have been continuing as Deputy Executive Engineers, it is no more open for them to protest and request re-consideration of their seniority in zone-IV, when State-wide Seniority List is prepared. In the circumstances, they should confine their claim with reference to zone-III alone.
43. Assertion of protection of their seniority when they were transferred from zone-III to zone-IV, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.397, dated 23.10.2008, rather remained dormant for long. It cannot be permitted to be raised now.
44. Since the post of Executive Engineer is a state level post, it is necessary that an integrated seniority list of all the Zones should be prepared by the 2nd respondent of Deputy Executive Engineers for each panel year. [Vide. Govt. of AP and another Vs A. Sathyanarayana and others (1991 supp (2) SCC 367) referred in order in W.P. 40432 0f 2018 dt. 29. 04 .2019].
45. It is not in dispute that since the year 2013, right from panel years 1998-1999 to 2003-2004, several seniority lists of Deputy Executive Engineers were prepared and that they were also published. As rightly MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 15 contended for the respondents, the petitioners being aware of these earlier seniority lists, for reasons best known, did not choose to raise any objection. The petitioners 2 and 3 choose to raise objections for the first time, it appears on 12.06.2019 with reference to seniority list of Zone-III for the panel years 2002-2003 to 2017-2018.
46. The petitioners also filed W.P.No.18606 of 2019, when Sri V.V.M.Krishnama Naidu, Sri M. Siva Prasad and Sri M. Ravanaiah were promoted as Executive Engineers, through G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 08.03.2019, G.O.Ms.No.87, dated 08.03.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.127, dated 05.08.2019, who belonged to Zone-IV, raising similar objection that they all belonged to 1989 batch and their seniority was not properly decided. An interim direction was issued by this court to the 2nd respondent to consider their representations dated 12.06.2019, 20.09.2019 and 24.09.2019 in the above writ petition by an order dated 25.11.2019, within a period of eight (08) weeks. Now, the contention of the petitioners is that this writ petition was also disposed of.
47. The petitioners had several opportunities to raise these questions earlier even at the stage when they were promoted in Zone-IV to the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer. Thereafter, when seniority lists were prepared and finalized for different panel years, till they choose to object by their representations, they remained silent. They are aware that they could challenge those seniority lists, when their specific case is that their names did not find place in those lists. They could have approached an appropriate forum for redressal at all these stages. Those seniority lists were implemented.
MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 16
48. One of the instances pointed out by the respondents 6 to 15 is with reference to seniority list prepared by virtue of memo dated 14.05.2018 for the panel year 2018-2019 of the 2nd respondent and that they were also promoted by issuing G.O.Ms.No.70, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, dated 07.03.2019. It was not questioned by the petitioners in any manner.
49. As rightly contended for the respondents, the nature of relief sought by the petitioners right from the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers and then Deputy Executive Engineers, if considered, opens out recasting of the situation and seniority of other batches including entire 1989 batch. It is further to be noted that the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh came into effect from 02.06.2014. Therefore, a part of this batch, apparently, remained in The State of Telangana and other part remained in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Thus, if the exercise sought by the petitioners is acceded to, it opens out Pandora's Box.
50. Thus, there is a serious default on the part of the petitioners. Added to it, there is a huge delay in making this effort. Thus, their conduct in this context remains an added feature, as rightly pointed out for the respondents.
51. Another formidable question raised by the respondents in this respect, is want of presence of those affected as parties to this writ petition, if the request of the petitioners, is conceded. They were aware that the respondents 6 to 15 were already empanelled through the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee and G.O.Ms.No.660, dated 31.08.2020 is issued for their promotion to the MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 17 cadre of Executive Engineer. The petitioners did not initially choose to make them party respondents to this writ petition. It was left to the respondents 6 to 15 to come on record by impleading themselves, filing a separate petition, questioning the claim of the petitioners. This conduct of the petitioners is not only reflecting that they resorted to a serious suppression of fact but also instituted this Writ Petition without adding necessary parties, who are affected by their claim.
52. Apart from these respondents 6 to 15, if the reliefs requested by the petitioners are to be considered, all those affected right from the stage of their promotion as Deputy Engineers in Zone-IV including those who were empanelled and promoted during different years till now, should be the parties to this writ petition. Their presence is also necessary, in as much as they would be the affected parties, if relief is granted in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, their absence in this writ petition is another fatal circumstance to the claim of the petitioners.
53. Attempt of the petitioners, to rely on the order of this Court in W.P.No.40432 of 2018 dated 29.04.2019 is out of context. A careful consideration of this ruling makes out that it did not pertain to PR Department. This dispute relates to RWS&S Department. In the circumstances, a direction was given to prepare zonal seniority list of various zones for the purpose of promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineers within the zones and also the state-wide seniority list of Assistant Engineers of all zones for the purpose of promotion to Executive Engineers. The occasion to consider this exercise was on account of the exclusion of certain Deputy Executive Engineers belonging to zone-V and zone-VI, while preparing an integrated seniority list in that MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 18 cadre. The seniority list in question in the above case was prepared only for zones-I to IV. The petitioners therein initially belonged to zone-V and zone-VI. These Zones are in The State of Telengana. Assigning appropriate seniority to those allotted to residual State of AP from Telangana post bifurcation of the State was considered in that Writ Petition. Therefore, the observations in the above ruling should necessarily be confined to the given facts in that case.
54. Individual instances pointed out by the petitioners, cannot have any bearing where seniority was considered with reference to their placement in a particular zone and where they continued.
55. All these questions were considered by the 2nd respondent in its detailed order in Memo No.G.Section/9622/ 2013, dated 30.06.2020 and rightly the objections of the petitioners were rejected. Thereafter, Memo No.G.Section/ 9622/2013, dated 27.08.2020, was issued placing the petitioners in the panel year 2004-2005. Indeed, an elaborate exercise was undertaken by the 2nd respondent, in this context. The petitioners invited this situation by their indolence and inaction. Law favours those who are vigilant and loathes indolent.
56. One of the contentions of the petitioners is that their representations were not considered by the 2nd respondent in spite of Memo.No.PRR01-PREOMISC/118/2019-EASTT.I,dated 16.12.2019 of the 1st respondent. They were disposed of by the 1st respondent after institution of this writ petition by Memo.No.PRR01-PREOMISC/118/2019- EASTT.I,dated 22.09.2020 considering the objections. It has no bearing now.
MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 19
57. Therefore, for the above reasons, the orders issued by the 2nd respondent vide Memo.No.G.Section/9622/2013, dated 30.06.2020 and the consequential order in assigning seniority to the petitioners in the panel year 2004-05 by Memo. No. G.Section/9622/2013, dated 27.08.2020, cannot be found fault with.
58. Thus, this point is answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners.
POINT No.2:-
59. In view of the findings on point No.1, issuance of G.O.Ms.No.660, dated 31.08.2020, enlisting eligible Deputy Executive Engineers for promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers which is a State-wide post, is justified. There is no reason to interfere with the action of the 1st respondent in this context at the instance of the petitioners. Nor such action is illegal or arbitrary violating any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. Thus, this point is answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners.
60. In view of the findings on points 1 and 2, the Writ Petition No.16177 of 2020 should necessarily be dismissed. In as much as the relief sought in Writ Petition No.17971 of 2020 is with reference to implementation of G.O.Ms.No.660, dated 31.08.2020, in view of the findings recorded above, no separate order needs be passed therein.
61. In the result, W.P.No.16177 of 2020 is dismissed. No costs. Interim order earlier granted shall stand vacated.
MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 20
62. In view of dismissal of W.P.No.16177 of 2020; W.P.No.17971 of 2020 stands closed. No costs.
As sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE M.VENKATARAMANA Dt: 10.11.2020 Note: Issue C.C. by 18.11.2020 b/o RR MVR,J W.P.Nos.16177 & 17971 of 2020 21 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA WRIT PETITION Nos. 16177 & 17971 of 2020 Dt: 10.11.2020 RR