Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K. Pushpalatha, W/O C.S. Raja vs The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams on 16 March, 2022
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K.Suresh Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.9064 of 2013
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the revised seniority list of Staff Nurses, published by the 1st respondent, vide proceedings in Roc.No.TL2/7489/2006, dated 16.05.2007 and consequential promotion orders of respondents 2 to 4 issued vide proceedings Roc.No.TL2/3292/2008, dated 04.02.2013, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
2. Heard Sri V.Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.Sumanth, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy and P.Venkata Rama Sarma, learned counsels for unofficial respondents.
3. Facts in nutshell :
Petitioners including 26 candidates and the private respondents were appointed to the cadre of Staff Nurse vide proceedings in Roc.No.TL2/68645/85, dated 12.10.1989 in the existing vacancies in the 1st respondent's temple i.e., Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (for short 'TTD'), in pursuance to the selection conducted in the year 1989, by duly constituted selection committee. It is further stated that at the time of issuing the said proceedings, the 1st respondent has not followed the merit list prepared on the basis of marks awarded to the candidates and 2 does not reflect the preference either in the order of merit or the Rule of reservation. The 1st respondent has arranged the seniority of all the 26 candidates, vide Memo Roc.No.TL2/8336/95, dated 24.02.1995 and called for objections. According to the said seniority list, petitioners 1 to 5 were shown at Sl.No.43, 44, 54, 56 & 57 respectively and unofficial respondents 2 to 5 were shown below the petitioners 1 & 2. It is further stated that the 1 st respondent, vide proceedings in Roc.No.C1/17675/C.Cell/95, dated 14.12.1995 confirmed the services of the Staff Nurses including the petitioners and private respondents showing the dates of their regularization in the service.
(ii) While so, the 1st respondent has prepared and communicated another seniority list of Staff Nurses, vide Circular in Roc.No.TL2/7489/2006, dated 20.4.2006 calling for objections, if any, within the stipulated period i.e., 20.05.2006. In the said seniority list of the Staff Nurses also, the 1st respondent has arranged the ranks of the petitioners and the respondents, in accordance with the earlier seniority list of Staff Nurses communicated vide Memo, dated 24.02.1995 and 14.12.1995 respectively. Respondents 2 to 4 seems to have submitted their representation to the 1st respondent requesting to arrange their seniority in accordance with the proceeding dated 12.10.1989. At this stage, it is stated that the proceedings, dated 12.10.1989 has no basis at all and the same has lost its validity after preparation of subsequent seniority list of all the Staff Nurses, dated 3 24.02.1995 and 14.12.1995. Considering the objections raised by respondents 2 to 4 and others, the 1st respondent has revised the ranks of the Staff Nurses of 1989 batch only, disturbing the seniority given to the petitioners and unofficial respondents. Thereafter, the revised seniority list, which is impugned in the present writ petition, has been issued. The reason indicated in the said proceedings is that the appointment is issued on the basis of Rule of Reservation and therefore, the objections raised by respondents 2 to 4 and others were considered and seniority is revised. On the basis of the said averments, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to set aside the impugned seniority list.
4. The 1st respondent filed counter stating that the selection committee has only given the list of selected candidates by category wise and accordingly, appointment orders were given by following the Roster points as well as the Rule of Reservation without disturbing the order of list of selected candidates, which was given in category-wise. In the proceedings, dated 24.02.1995, only a provisional seniority list which was not matching the order of preference as given in the appointment order was prepared and the said provisional seniority list was not confirmed and the contentions of petitioners that the said provisional seniority list has attained finality is incorrect.
(ii) It is also contended on behalf of the 1 st respondent that the proceedings, dated 14.12.1995 is only with regard to confirmation of service, but not related to the confirmation of 4 seniority among the Nurses and it is clearly stated that the confirmation does not confer any right of seniority in the cadre. As such, the confirmation was subjected to finalization of seniority in the cadres.
(iii) It is also submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioners were under presumption that memo, dated 14.12.1995 is the confirmed seniority list and as such, the contention of the petitioners that the seniority list attained finality by memo, dated 14.12.1995 is incorrect. It is submitted by him, that the order 14.12.1995 only reflects the confirmation of services of Staff Nurses in their entry grade into the 1st respondent.
(iv) It is further submitted by learned standing counsel that till 2006, the seniority among the Staff Nurses has not been confirmed and with only provisional seniority the promotions were being effected. It is only to confirm the seniority list and in order to prepare a tentative seniority list, the 1st respondent has issued a circular, dated 20.04.2006, duly calling for objections if any. In response to the said Circular, certain Staff Nurses filed their objections. The 1st respondent examined the entire list along with objections, verified the appointments files and roster register, who were appointed in the year 1989 and found that their objections deserve consideration and accordingly, the seniority list was revised by way of impugned proceedings, dated 16.05.2007. While revising seniority list, none of the petitioners have raised any 5 objections with regard to their seniority even after communication of confirmed seniority list.
(v) It is further submitted by the learned standing counsel as well as other counsels appearing on behalf of unofficial respondents that as per Circular No.57759/Ser.A/2004-I, dated 20.05.2004, no requests for revision of seniority for a period which is more than three years, shall be considered. As such, the grievance of the petitioners is misconceived and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
5. This court has perused the entire material on record. It is specifically stated by the learned standing counsel for the 1 st respondent that the proceedings dated 14.12.1995 is only with regard to the confirmation of service only, but not related to the confirmation of seniority among the Staff Nurses and it was mentioned that confirmation does not confer any right of seniority in the cadre and as such, it is subjected to finalization of seniority list in the cadre. It was done on 20.04.2006 duly calling for objections. Admittedly, the petitioners did not raise their objections to the communication, vide Circular dated 20.04.2006 as such, the 1st respondent has prepared the impugned seniority list, dated 16.05.2007.
6. Further, as seen from the record, in view of the Circular No.57759/Ser.A/2004-I, dated 20.05.2004 and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in B.S.Bajwa & 6 Another vs State Of Punjab & Others1 the contention of the writ petitioners is liable to be rejected. Admittedly, petitioners did not raise any objections from 2006 onwards and they came with the present objection after more than five years. Hence, in view of the Circular stated Supra and also considering the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court, this Court feels that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. In that view of matter, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
____________________ SRI K.SURESH REDDY,J 16th March,2022.
RPD 1 1998 (2) SCC 523 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY Writ Petition No. 9064 of 2013 Dated: 16.03.2022 RPD