Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yenni Jhansi Bhai, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 March, 2021
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.5332 of 2021
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
"....to issue a writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.9/A1/A3/2021, dated 05.02.2021 in rejecting the petitioner's appeal by denying the service points acquired by the petitioner from the previous station i.e., M.P.U.P. School, Gedda Kancharam Village, G. Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District w.e.f 19.08.2009 to 09.08.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to compute and award the previous station points to the petitioner for the service rendered by the petitioner in M.P.U.P. School, Gedda Kancharam Village, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District w.e.f 19.08.2009 to 09.08.2017 on part with others and allot suitable place in G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District nearby petitioner's spouse working place or Rajam/Regidi Amadalavalasa/ Ponduru Mandal by retransfer..."
2. The petitioner was appointed on 11.11.2005 as Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) in MPP School, Bavajipeta Village, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District in the year 19.08.2009 and from there again transferred to M.P.U.P. School, V.R. Agraharam Village, Rajam Mandal, Srikakulam District on 09.08.2017 in view of general transfers effected in the year 2020.
2
3. In view of re-apportionment to the post, the petitioner was transferred to the present place i.e., MPPS Suryamanipuram, V.Kotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District. As per the transfer guidelines/rules, the petitioner made an application through online, but as per the instructions of the respondents the computer system is accepting only the present station points from 09.08.2017 to 01.10.2020 as there is no program to calculate the previous service points at MPUP Gedda Kancharam, since the petitioner's transfer was on administrative grounds/rationalization of posts. As such, the petitioner was awarded only 21.8844 points (Station Seniority Points : 9.4390 + Service points : 7.4454 + Re-apportionment points : 5 + Spouse points : 5 = 21.8844) instead of 44.9748 (i.e., 21.884 + 23.0904 Previous Station points = 44.9748) which is not inclusive of the previous station points.
4. On account of failure to award points for the previous station, the petitioner suffered a lot and made a representation to the 3rd respondent on 21.01.2021 requesting time to award total service points by taking into consideration of previous station service points of MPUP School, Gedda Kancharam from 19.08.2009 to 09.08.2017. But, the appeal was not considered by the 3rd respondent in accordance with law and the previous station service points were not taken into consideration for awarding points to transfer the petitioner to his opted station. Therefore, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order vide Rc.No.9/A1/A3/2021, dated 05.02.2021, rejecting petitioner's 3 appeal without assigning proper reasons, which is illegal and arbitrary and requested to set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents to award previous station points to the petitioner and afford an opportunity to participate in transfer counselling.
5. During hearing, Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the main petition, whereas learned Government Pleader for Services-III opposed the petition, while supporting the order impugned in this writ petition.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner filed an appeal under Guideline 19 of G.O.Ms.No.54, School Education (Services.II) Department, dated 12.10.2020. Against the order in the appeal, a revision is available under the statutory guidelines issued in exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Guideline 20 of G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 12.10.2020 is extracted as hereunder:-
20. Revision.
(i) The Director of School Education may either suo motu or an application received from any person aggrieved by the orders of the Transfer Committee may call for and examine the records in respect of any proceedings of transfer to satisfy himself about its regularity, legality or propriety. If, in any case, it appears to him that any such proceedings should be revised, modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass order accordingly or remand the case with any direction so as to rectify any violation of guidelines or 4 discrepancy. Such orders shall be implemented by the authority concerned;
(ii) The Director of School Education may stay the implementation of any such proceedings, pending exercise of its powers under Guideline 20(i) above;
(iii) Revision exercise and issue of orders shall be completed within 4 weeks from the date of issue of the transfer orders.
No extension shall be permissible.
7. Thus, the revisional authority vested with all powers that vested on the Courts that conferred on the Court including grant of stay or suspension of the orders passed by the authority. When the petitioner is entitled to file appropriate application for revision under Guideline 20 of G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 12.10.2020 aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority under Guideline 19 of G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 12.10.2020 this Court normally would not entertain petition the under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. In the recent judgment Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another1 the Division Bench of the Apex Court held that, when a statutory remedy is available under the statute, the Court would not normally entertain the writ petition against assessment order. The Apex Court finally concluded that, if the submission is accepted, every time the dispute will be required to be taken up in proceedings such as a petition under Article 226 of the 1 (2019) 311 CTR (SC) 737 5 Constitution, which normally would not be entertained in case of any disputed questions of fact or concerning factual aspects of the matter. The assessee may thus, not only lose a remedy of having the matter considered on factual facets of the matter but would also stand deprived of regular channels of challenges available to it under the hierarchy of fora available under the Act.
9. In view of the judgment referred above, when an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner this Court cannot exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the administrative orders passed by the authorities.
10. Applying the principle laid down in the above judgment, I find that it is not a fit case to warrant any interference by this Court, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while relegating the petitioner to file appropriate revision under Guideline 20 of G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 12.10.2020.
11. With the above direction, this writ petition is dismissed, at the stag of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 04.03.2021 IS 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.5332 of 2021 Date: 04.03.2021 IS