Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Jatothu Ramesh vs Comptroller And Auditor-General Of ... on 3 June, 2021
Oase7asang
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
HYDERABAD
OAANRUZTA2019
Reserved on: 28414.2021
Pronounced on:03.06.20
Ra Seca
or phy,
2
{s
} siHon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judi. Member
© Hon' ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Admn. Member
| Jatothu Ramesh,
S/o. Dasru, aged about 28 years,
Oce: Multi Tasking Staff,
(Yo. Principal Accountant General (Audit),
Saifabad, Hyderabad ~ 500 004,
2. Bethi Sandeep, So. Bethi Kishan,
Aged about 25 years,
Oec: Multi Tasking Stal,
Ofo, Principal Accountant General (Audit),
Saifabad, Hyderabad -- 300 004,
3, Anuradha V, D4. V. Semaiah,
Aged about 34 veoars,
Ove: Multi Tasking Stal,
Ovo. Principal Accountant General {Audit},
Salfabad, Hyderabad ~ 500 004.
4. Gount Parashuramudu,
S/o. G. Chandra Reddy,
Aged about 27 years,
Oce: Multi Tasking Stall,
O¥o. Principal Accouritart General (Audit),
Saifabad, Hyderabad -- 500 004.
§. Sh. KRodaratallahi khuresh,
S/o. Shaik Shikindar, aged about 48 years,
Oce: Multi Tasking Stal!)
O¥o. Principal Accountant General (Audit),
Saifabad, Hyderabad --~ S04) 004.
6. Muniganti Nagarju, S/o. M. Bhaskara Chary,
Aged about 24 years,
Occ: Multi Tasking Stam,
Oo. Principal Accountant General (Audit),
Saifabad, Hyderabad -- 500 004.
Page Pol 18
DAL274/2049
7. Anil Kumar Kothi, §'o. Venkatram,
. Aged about 29 years,
S\ Qee: Multi Tasking Staff,
Sy Ofo. Principal Accountant General (Audit),
ax ter' Saifabad, Hyderabad ~ $00 004,
We
So
. Applicants
(By Advocate :Dr. A. Raghu Kumar}
Vs.
Union of India rep. by
The Comptroller and Auditor General,
9, Deendayal Upadyay Mare,
New Delhi ~ 1.
ae The Principal Accountant General (Audit),
Andhra Pradesh, Salfabad,
Hyderabad ~ 500 004,
3. The Principal Accountant General (Audit),
Telangana, Saifabad,
Hyderabad -- S00 004.
4. The Senor Deputy Accountant General (Admn),
Ovo. Principal Accountant General (Audit),
Telangana, Saifabad,
Hyderabad ~~ 300 004,
8. The Senier Audit OMiecer (Admin),
O/o. Principal Accountant General (Audit),
Telangana, Saifabad,
Hyderabad ~ $60 004,
o. The Secretary,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGD Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi ~ 91.
. Respondents
(By Advocate:Sri K. Alay Rumar, SC for TA & AD)
Pape 2 af 18
ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. BLY, Sudhakar, Admn. Member)
2. The OA has been fled challenging the order dated 20.12 2618 wherein applicants were shown as Muli Tasking Staff (or short MIT) borne on the cadre of Principal Accountant General, AP (or short PAG-
/ AP) consequent to the bifurcation memo issued on 2.11.2018.
3. Brief facts are that the applicants were appointed as MTS in July 2018 and vide order dt.2.1 1.2018 they were shown in the cadre of PAG-AP. Though several representations were submitted, ignoring the same, applicants were posted to PAG AP on 23.1.2019. Further, representations against the posting orders yielded no tangible results and hence, the OA.
4. The cormentions of the applicants are that in the notification dated 31.12.2016, the vacancies were shown separately for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Staff Selection Commission (for short "SSC') has allocated the applicants to Telangana with departmental code as TEL-12, as they opted for the said State. Further, proceedings were issued by SSC on 31.5.2018 showing the allocation separately for Telangana and AP. The appointment orders were issued by PAG, Telangana in Judy 2018. The final declaration of vacancies separately was issued by SSC on 12.03.2018, reconfirming the fact that the vacancies declared were separate for AP & Telangana. The bifurcation of PAG office consequent to bifurcation of AP State, was effected on 14.2017 and the selection! appointment of applicants took place between February 2018 & July 2018. Respondents could have revised vacancies by 12.03.2018, which they did not attempt. Therefore, Pape 3 of TS GAS2FAPATLS respondents cannot contend that the recruitment was for both the States, o\, Comptroller & Auditor General (for short CAG) has decided vide policy *} dated 28.11.2018, not to depute MTS Staff even on deputation to PAG-AP and therefore, transferring applicants to the cited office would not arise, 'consequence. While rejecting the representation di. 612.2018, respondents referred to para 13 of offer of appointment claiming that applicants are liable for posting in CAG/ any respondent office. The said clause was inserted as an afterthought which was not included by sister departments.
Inclusion of such provision is against CAG policy dt. 28.11.2018.
Applicants are the lowest grade employees in the Central Government structure and are usually Hable to be transferred within division' zone. Applicants were allotted ta Telangana based on merit and. preference. Applicants were even directed by PAG-AP not to make further representation. The impugned orders are arbitrary and are violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution, Principles of Natural Justice and legitimate expectation.
5, Respondents in the reply statement contend that prior to 14.2017, there were 3 offices namely PAG (G & SSA), PAG (E& RSA) & DGA (C) with PAG (G&SSA) as the cadre controlling authority (for short "CCA" for staff working in the 3 offices. After 14.2017, the offices were reorganized as PAG (Tel), PAG (AP) & DGA (C), with PAG (Tel) as the CCA for the period from L4.2017 to 30.90.2018 On 294.2016, a requisition was submitted to SSC (Staff Selection Commission), for filling y Tete Page 4 of 18 QA/27 4/2019 Neo. dic), it was indicated that selected candidates are Hable to be transferred to any LIA & AD office to be created in the States of Telangana/AP. Options were called on 4.8.2017 after bifurcation of the Zloffices on 14.2017 and only a few wpted for AP. Consequently, CAG took a policy decision on 28.11.2018 te past all those recruited after 14.2017 to AP and hence, applicants selected against examination of 2016 were allocated to PAG, AP. The recruitment process after 14.2017 in respect of Auditors, DEOs, MTS, etc. was overseen by PAG (Tel) and all of them were allotted to PAG (AP) as per CAG order dt. 28.1 1.2018. Applicants on "i ay é accepting the clauses 13 & 17 of the offer of appointment, they were issued appointment orders. Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution have not been violated. SSC has allotted candidates to PAG (G & SSA), the CCA for AP & Telangana and since the office was situated in Telangana, the code Tel.
12 was used. PAG (AP) was not listed as the user department by SSC. After candidates are allotted, SSC has no locus standi in respect of their postings.
There was no scope for changing the requisition since bifurcation came into effect on LiQ2018, with the allocation of staff vide CAO letter dt. {9.7.2018. Appointment orders were issued by PAG (Tel) because he was the CCA upte 1.10.2018. Although the requisition was submitted to SSC in April 16, the results were declared in February 2018, which is beyond the control of respondents. The CAQ policy dated 28.11.2018, devised after consultation with stakeholders exernpted MTS staff only from deputation and not for allocation. After 110.2018, applicants came under the control of PAG-AP and hence, were directed by the said authority not to make Page S of FR QA/274/2019 further representations. SSC has recruited staff for PAG (G & SSA) AP & a Telangana and not exclusively for Telangana. In letter dt. 13.02.2019, it was intimated that though MTS staff are not Hable for all India transfers, they are liable to be posted to any [A & AD offices created in the States af AP & Telangana.
"J Applicants have filed a rejoinder wherein they contend that while filling the on-line application, separate codes to indicate preferences for the States of Telangana' AP were shown and applicants, on preferring Telangana, were allotted to the said state based on the relevant cut off mark fixed. The CAG policy was about posting those recruited to PAG CAP) after 14.2017 and not those recruited to PAG (G & SSA) AP & Telangana. For Auditors, DEO etc. they have to choose State as well as department, but in respect of MIPS, it is only the State. Applicants would have lost the job if clause 17 of offer of appointment was net accepted. Not posting applicants to a State they were selected is violative of Articles 14 & [6 of the Constitution. Out of 170 candidates selected, 62 were allotted to Telangana and not AP.
CAG policy does not state that applicants will be transferred to AP.
6, Heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings on record. Both parties were given an opportunity to file written submissions and the applicants have availed i, Respondents chase not to.
70) The dispute is about allocating the applicants to PAG-AP in MTS cadre. They appeared in the examination held against SSC notification dated 31.12.2016 and got selected as MTS. The tentative vacancies shown in the notification for MTS cadre against exam 2015, is as under:
Page & of 18 QA/274/2019 State UR OBC Sc ST Total UO EXS OH UHH AP 58 48? 1 3 7 _ i Telangana | 66 ad ae! 1S 12? ? i Q Total vacancies for AP is 125 and 127 for Telangana. The cut off mark A\fixed for document verification to the States of AP! Telangana. for different 'categories, by SSC is as under:
Region | Satel/T i State? {S&C SP ESS | OH HH OBC OVE. UR name end : Code --
SR AP i3 [35.75 } TESS £02 tis TE | P24 PUS.25 | 728 SR Telangana i 4 TRESS ETERS | BS i628 0. AZ38 } 16 123,75 SR = Southern Region The number of candidates selected by SSC after document verification state-wise and category-wise are given hereunder: Region | StawvUT [| Sete'UT SC PSY CEXS OH DHA OBC OVH FUR | Total Hane Code SR AP 3 ie PR GPF 8 (3 180) 3 1G) | 386 SR Telangana | 4 36 38 FO ES 0 Q2 3 164 | 369 The final vacancies as on 12.3.2018 declared by SSC is as follows: SR State UR ne SY | GBC TOTAL EXS OOH UHH VH AP U9? 8 is $8 | 188 3 i i Telangana ; 86 18 19 aS EY i 2 0 I The applicants have been shown to be selected against cade TEL-12 in the list of candidates recommended for appointment as shown from pages 84 to 87 of the OA. State preference codes have been given al para & of the notification with AP given the code af 3 & Telangana as 4. As per SSC, the following codes were allotted to different offices of the respondents organization:
Page 7 of U8 DA/2 74/2019 Dept | Name of User Department. | Postal address ods coerce .
TEL. Principal Aecountant | Deputy Accountant General (Admni, Ofo. The Principal i General (G & SSA): Accenmiante General (G & SSA), Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad ~ 04 &Telangana, Sailabad, Hyderabad - 3060038, Dept | Name of User Department Pustal address Cade .
i iAP-5 Principal Acecumtant General | Demuty Accountant General (Admni, (Yo. The (Accounts & -- Entitlements} | Principal Accramlant General (A & FE), Telangana, Wyderubad -- 04 Saifabad, Hyderabad --~ 300004.
The SSC has released lists on 31.5.2018/11.06.2018/13.07. 2018 indicating the candidates selected for Office of PAG (G & SSA) for posting in Telangana (Page 102 of OA) wherein the applicants' names figure.
fl. From the above details, it must be understood that SSC has conducted the examination 2016 for selection to the posts of MTS to different departments under Southern Region. Henee, the MTS vacancies for the States of AP & Telangana of different departments have been tentatively indicated in the tables supra. As far as the respondents are concemed, two codes were given namely Tel-l2 for PAG (G & SSA} Hyderabad and for PAG (A&E) Hyderabad as AP-S. The applicants were allawed ta choose examination centres by giving codes for States. The applicants are interpreting the choice of codes for States for selecting exam centres, as the choice of their States. This may not be correct. Code of Tel- 12 given for PAG (G & SSA) covers both Telangana & AP. Therefore, the applicants stand that they have been selected only for Telangana is a weak argument. However, SSC, while releasing the list of selected candidates on different dates from 31.58.2018 to 13.7.2018 has used the phrase "for posting in Telangana", The phrase was used in the context of allotting \, is Page Boris OA/27 4/2019 scope for the applicants to claim that they were selected only for Telangand® though they accepted the conditions [3 & 17 of offer of appointment to liable to be transferred t9 CAG office' any IA & AD office and to be permanently allocated to office of PAG (AP). The conditions are extracted ~ Sihereunder for reference:
Clause i3;
"She'He will be Hable ta be transferred to Office of the CAG of india or to any other offices within the 14 & AD fexiting or to be created in future} on such terns and conditions as the CAG of india may decide. Reguesty for transfer to any ex-cadre paxt or to any other organization within or autside Gavi af india an deputation ar on permanent absorption basis will be regulated by the instructions issued Ay the Govt. of India' CAG of India' Cadre Controlling Authority from time to time. However, during the period of probation, reguests for deputation etc. will not be entertained." Clause 17:
"She/He is Hable to be permanently allocated ta Ovo, PAG (Andit), Andhra Pradesh."
lil, On accepting the conditions, applicants were appointed in July 2018, with specific clause 10 as ander: "He is Hable te be transferred to Office af the C & AG af India ar to any ather offlees within the 1A & AD (existing ar ta be created in Future} on such terms and conditions as the C & AG of India muy decide. "
Therefore, invoking the above clause the respondents have allocated the applicants to PAG (AP) vide impugned order under reference. Applicants in defence state that, if they were not to accept the clauses 13 & 17 of offer of appointment, they would have run the risk of losing the selection and hence, Gut af sheer helplessness, the learned counsel for the applicants Bage F of 18 OA/2 74/2019 explains, that the applicants accepted the offer of appointment. Afier being "
ss, fully aware of the conditions 13 & 17 of offer of appointment, applicants *.
3 e pecepting the same and thereafter, when transferred to PAG (AP) raising an 4 objection would not be in accordance with the principle of estoppel, Hence, their stand to this extent may not hold good.
\ Re "IV. However, SSC has fixed cut off marks for allotment of candidates to the States. Applicants who have got more than or equal to the cut off marks were allotted to Telangana. The mode of selection as per notification is as under:
"Candidates will be shortlisted for the Paper-l] on the basis af their performance in Paper-l Paper-ll will only of qualifying nature. The cut-offs in Paper-l and qualifving mark in PaperH] may be different for vacancies in each State'UT will be fixed ai the discretion af the Commission, Candidates for each State'UT will be finally selected based on their performance in Paper-f, subject to their meeting basic qualifving standards fixed in Paper-fi."
ft is the said condition which appears ta be the reason for SSC to indicate in the selected candidates list released by them cited supra, that the candidates were to be posted to Telangana. Hence, this has given rise to a legitimate expectation, amongst the applicants that they have to work in the State of Telangana. Belyin fe such legitimate expectation is against the observations of the Han"ble Apex Court in Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (/293) 7 SCC 7/, as under:
in contractual sphere as in all other Stede actions. the State and ail Hs istrisnentaiities have io conform to Articie 24 af the Constitution of whieh non-arhitrariness is a significant facet. There is ma unfettered discretion ia public law: 4 public authority possesses powers Ondy [Oo ve them for public goad. This imposes the duty to act fairly and ta adopt a procedure which ix fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation ay @ part of good administration riises a reasonable or levitimate Pape 10 of 18 OA/274/2019 expectation in every citisen io de ireated fairly in dix interaction with the State and fs lastrumentadities, with ihix element farming a necessary component of the decision making pracess in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non- arburariness In a Slate action, if ix, theres secessary 16 consider and give due weight to the reasonahle or legitimate expectations of fie persons Hkely to be affected bv the decision or else thai unfairness in the exercise af ihe penver ina aunounl ia an abuse ar excess of power apr? Jront affecting the dona Ades of the decision in a given case. The decision so nade woud be exposed to challenge on the ground af arbitrariness. Ride of law dows not completely eliminate discretion in fhe exercixe af power, as it is waredfistic. but providers for cantral of tts exerciye Ay fudicial review.
five oe &. TRe mere reasonable of legitimate expectation af a-citiser, in such a stivetion, may nal by iiself be a distine! enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight fo i omay reader the decision arbitrary, and ihis is how the requirement of due consideration of a Legitimate expeckition forats part of the principle of non- arifivariness, @ necessary concomitant of fhe rufe of law. Kvery legtfinnste expectation is a relevant faetor requiring due consideratian a fair devixion making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonahle or legttinute in the canes? iy dg question of fact in each case. Whenever the question spines, if iy do be determined set acceriding fo the claimant's perception bit in larger public interest whereia other more important considerations rury oubveigh what would otherwise have been ihe legineiate expectation of ihe claimurn. 4 bona tide decision af the public cutharity reached in tie maner would safixfy fhe reguiremcoy of nen-arbivariness and withstand jueicial scrutiny. The deetrine ef lesifimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule af law and operates ia aur legal ayxtem in this marmer and ia this OXTENL, ?
9 fa Counsell of Civif Service Unions and Ors. v. Afinister for the Cail Service, 1983 AO 374 (ALG the Neuse of Lardy indicated the extent to which the legitimate expectation interfaces with exercise af discretionary power The gupugned action was upheld as reasonable, made an due consideration of all relevant factars iacluding the legitimate expectation of the applicant, wherein fie consideradians of national security were found fe extweigh thet witch otherwise would have been the reasonable expectation af fhe apmliicant. Lord Scarman pointed aul that 'the controlling factor in determining whether the exercise of prerogative power is subject te justicial review ix not Bs source buf ifs subject-matter' f Again in fs re Preston, [88S AC. 833 GELG if was stated Ay Lord Searman that 'the principle af fairness fax an Guporiané place in the law of Radictal review! and 'unfairness in ihe purported exercise of a power car be sek that i ix an abuse of excess of pawer' These decisions af fhe House of Lordy give @ similar indication of the significance af the doctrine af leeltimate expectation. Sari AK. Sen referred to Shanti Pifay de (Co. ete.
y. Princess Batinta Fouzia and Ors. etc. fi ¥8O7 1 SCR. 489. sehich holes that court should fuerfere where discretionary power is nol exercised reasanadly and in saad fatth.
fQ. From the ahove, if is clear that even tough the highest tenderer can claim ao right to hee Nix tender accepted there being a power while invhiig jenders te reject all the ienders, vel the power to reject all the fenders eapmel be exercised arblererily and prust depend for its validity an the existence ef cogent reasons far such action. The object of inviting tenders for disposal of a commodity is te procure the kighest price while giving equal oppertunity fo all the nuending bidders ft conmpete. - Peoeurine the highest price for the commodity is sanioubtediy in public Page PP of 18 & OA/2 74/2019 bilerest since the amount xo collected goes to the public land Acvardingly. inadeguacy of the price offered in the highest tender wauld he a cogent graund Jor negotiating with thetenderers giving them equal OP PUr uly fo f 3 % revise their bids with a view to ahtain the highest available price. The (SES &, inendegucacy may be for several reasons knawn in the commercial feta. inadequacy of the prince quoted in the highest tender would be a Guestion of fact in each case. Retaining the option te accept fhe highest tender, in vase the negotiations do not yield a significanily higher 0 Per would be fair to the teaderers hesides protecting the public interest A procedure wherein resort ix hed fo negotiations with the tenderers for ablaining a significantly higher Aid during the period when the atfers in the tenders remidn open for acceptiunce and rejection af the tenders anly in the event of a significant higher bid heing obtained during nepetiations woe ardinarily satisfy this requirement. This procedure invalves giviag due weight fo fhe fegitimate expectation ef the highest Bidder to have his tender accepted unless outhid by a higher offer, in whick case BCCOPMAHCE af the highest affer wilhtin the time the oPers remain apen would be @ reasonable exercise of power Jor public good oN
-- & .
V. Moreover, once the game starts, the rules of the game cannot © be changed as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. Manjusree y, State of AP. :(2008)3 SCC 512, as under:
"Selection criteria has to be adopted and declared at the tte ap commencement of the recruitment process. The rules of the game cannot be changed affer the game ix over. The competent authority, iy fhe statutory rules de nat restrain, is fully competent to prescribe the munion qualifving marky for writtet examination ax well as jor interview. But such prescription muxt he done at the time of faitiation of selection process. Change of criteria af selection in the midst ay selection process is not permissible."
The respondents cannot therefore, allocate the applicants to other states, when they have been allocated to Telangana as per cut off marks fixed for the said State, as per notification. Any decision contrary to the terms in the notification would therefore be violative of the above legal principle.
VIL "The CAG has decided not to depute MTS! Drivers to PAG-AP, perhaps appreciating the difficulties of the lowest cadre, to which the applicants belong to. Therefore, when CAG could be considerate in disapproving deputation of MTS to PAG-AP, we are surprised that the said Page 12 of 18 OA/274/2019 PAG-AP, However, a decision to allocate all those who were recruited after 1.4.2017 to PAG-AP is not in tune with the policy af SSC to allocate candidates to the Slates based on cut of marks. 'The Tribunal does not iota generally interfere in policy matters as long as it is rational and not malafide. [n the instant case, the CAG policy has ignored the aspect of cut off marks adopted by SSC in allotting States and the legal principle of not going against the norms of noti Aeation.
(ir VIf. Besides, the bifurcation of the offices took yiace on 14.2017 and the i final vacancies were declared by SSC on 12.03.2018. Respondents had ample time to approach SSC and indicate the vacancies separately for Telangana and AP, which they did not do. At least when they received the list from SSC posting the applicants to Telangana, respondents could have sought appropriate clarification from SSC, No such attempt was made. Therefore, for their mistake, penalizing the applicants is not as per law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in series of judgments as under:
The Apex Court in a case decided an 14.12.2007 (lator ef Jadia vy. Sadhana Khanna, CA. No. R208/01) held that the mistake of the department cannot recoil on employees. in yet another recent case of MLM Thinunaiah vs. UPSC. CLA. Na. SRRVSGO} of BOOT decided on 313.2007, it has been ehxerved that if there is a faihire on the part of the officers to discharge thelr duties the Incumbent should pot be allowed to suffer. GH} It has been held in the case of Nirnial Chandra Bhattacharjee v. Union of India, 1991 Supp @) SCC 363 wherein the Apex Court has held "The mistake or delay on the part of the department should nat be permitied to recoil on the appellants."
VIL. True, PAG (G & SSA) has submitted the requisition on 29.4.2016 by which date, bifurcation of offices did not take place and hence, they could "
Q y oabe sac bY g Page HR of 18 OA/27 4/2018 x N 2 "
R not indicate the vacancies separately, After 14,2017, it is not understood as to why they could not get it clarified about the selection and not doing ) has / 80, has given rise to the dispute. It is also seen that DAG (Admn.
eertified, while forwarding the requisitions to SSC on 29.4.2016, that those =" Telangana and therefore, as per the certificate cited, applicants have to be Policies, therefore, cannot be evolved by gx indents XS appointed in Telangana only.
respondents against the conditions certified by them, while placim.
on SSC. Hence, the policy shall require a review in view of it net being in tandem with requisition submitted and terms of notifications. Thus, there is lack of consistency in decision making based on material available. Lack of consistency in decision making is nat as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secy. State of Karnataka vs K. Umadevi (2006) 4S5cC 1 *Cansistency is a virtue"
TX. We also abserve that the offices were Iifurcated an E4.2017, whereas the staff movement was ordered wis.f. |.102018 vide letter dt. aware that the 19.7. 2018. [tis thus clear that the respondents albeit being 2014 and the composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated in respondents offices in 2017, they did not take meaningful steps to conduct the recruitment process keeping in view the staff requirement of both the States, though ample opportunities came their way to do sa, as explamed in previous paras. os a Pave 14 of 18 DA/27 4/2019 fe The respondents claiming that they inserted clause 4(c} in the nee the respondents have not .
requisition dated 29.4 2016, will not sus given any reason as to why they did not clarify to SSC about the vacane er bifureation on 1.42017 or about their lack of efforts to elected candidates 3 Sta ahs ard to allotment of s for the cagwtge. Seek a clarification from SSC in rega ee ix aN & } Sito be pasted to the Mate of Telangana. Without being alert in taking proper y ef \ a if decisions at the appropriate time and justifying a wrong administrative decision with unjustifiable reasons as brought oul im paras supra will not afy the tenets af justice. Administrative decisions taken by considering Sati relevant considerations and ignoring relevant considerations would not stand legal scrutiny, as tn the instant case the cut off mark fixed for state allotment, which is crucial has been ignored. applicants that PAG (Telangana) has XL The contention of the issued the apocintment orders would mean that they are posted for felangana is not maintainable since PAG (Telangana) was the CCA from he has exercised the authority in the 14.2017 upte [1.2018 and as such, ean be read from the cited arder. After said capacity. Nothing more 10.2018, the PAG-AP became the CCA and directed the applicants nat to {.1Q.2018, make further representation on the issue, as a decision was taken to reject their request. Hence, the decision directing no further representation cannot be found faull with. Applicants can anh late the issue to the next higher level for resolutio Rais Respondents on their part, before calling for options, need to h the SSC notification carefully. Without appreciating the have gone through import of the terms and conditions any decisions taken are liable for a legal Page 15 of 18 OA/274/2019 challenge as seen in the instant case. Administratively, there was reason to :\ transfer the applicants to PAG-AP but it has to be done within the confines of law and not otherwise. Allotting of DEOQs, Auditors ete to PAG-~AP can be no reason to allot applicants from MTS cadre to PAG-AP, because the qualifications, selection process, responsibilities ete. are different. Usually, i 2\MTS are posted within a division' zone and they do not have All India as transfer liability because of they being from the lowest cadre of the bureaucracy with a lower pay scale. Forcing the applicants to accept unacceptable conditions as at clause 13 & 17 of the offer of appointment does not behove well of a model emplover like the respondents. We agree with the respondents that Tel-12 was the cade used by SSC for PAG (G & SSA) representing Telangana & AP, but there was clear lack of initiative on part of the respondents in following up with SSC with the subsequent developments unfolding in regard to bifareation of the offices on 14.2017, allocation of staff by 110.2018 and declaration of final vacancies by SSC on 12.3.2018. The claim of the respondents that SSC has no locus stand) after allocating the candidates is incorrect, because the SSC has phrased its order as posting of the applicants to Telangana which was not got clarified by the respondents at any instant of time whatseever. Hf the respondents intended to post the applicants to AP, they could have approached SSC for a proper issue of Hst of selected candidates to the State of AP with the appropriate code given the fact that PAG-AP was formed on 14.2017 and appointment orders were issued in July 2018 to the applicants, In view of the above, we find that the respondents have handled the entire issue in a lackadaisical manner. > Page [6 of 18 aie OASSTAf2O19 NIL. Other contentions made by "Both parties were gone into and they being not adequately relevant, have not been commented upon.
XIV. Therefore, for reasons stated like cut off marks for allocation of a State, lack of timely administrative action in indicating the vacancies, oN evolving a policy which is. inconsist ent etc. ¢, propel us to consider quashing 7 Sithe impugned order in question. However, learned counsel for the respondents pleaded that such an order will upset the apple cart. We do observe that there are a number of vacancies to be filled up in the PAG-AP and not filling the same, would impair the working of the said office.
Working of the PAG-AP is required in public interest, which cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, the respondents need to take a decision keeping in view the ground reality. Considering irrelevant facts and ignoring relevant facts, which are core to the issue, while taking the impugned decision is not in consonance with law, as pointed out supra. Respondents are better judges in balancing the requirements of both PAG-AP / Telangana and evolving a methodology acceptable to all the stakeholders.
Hence, we remit hack the matter to the first respondent to re-examine the issue afresh in the light of our observations supra as well as the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above and fo take an appropriate decision in accordance with rules/ law, Possibility of posting MTS to PAG-AP on a rotation hasis far a temporary period till the impasse is resolved can be explored by taking the stakeholders into o Page BP of 18 OAL 7Af20T9 i ;
4XV. In view of the prevail x Corona pandemic, we grant six months time to take a decision in the matter. "Till a decision is taken, applicants shall be allowed to continue to wurk in Telangana.
XVL With the above directions, the OA is disposed off with no order as to %e Oasis. sterres Tey CERTIFI JED TRUE CORY ana eheat NA Loy be 8 CASE NUMBERS AL ROY) Se oy asks hb DATE OF JUDG SEMENT.S x wd ate feat wy xeVeows peaeanes aah i A Poway NON. ot ee x} a ae RIERA ARES Genual ! Adoinigvative Howey Sevmpy Sanatic{Hydarabad Bench "Syae Copy / LA ed of OAT (Presedurs} Rules* ! get is af 18