Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mr. I.Narayana Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 February, 2020
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.5783 OF 2019
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai) This Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal), in Original Application No.2198 of 2018.
2. The petitioner herein was not a party in the said Original Application before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3 herein filed the said Original Application for a direction to the respondents therein to consider his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories for the panel year 2017-2018 against roster point No.25 with effect from the day on which the subsequent roster point Nos. 26 and 27 were filled vide D.P.C. meeting held on 31.08.2018 by the Director of Factories, if necessary by conducting review D.P.C. for the panel year 2017-2018 and to consider his claim.
3. Respondent No.3 herein belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and was initially appointed as Inspector of Factories by way of direct recruitment, vide proceedings Rc. No.A1/13472/10, dated 18.03.2013 issued by the Director of 2 Factories. Probation of respondent No.3 was also declared. The next higher category is the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories. According to the relevant Rules, roster Point No.25 is required to be filled up by Scheduled Tribe candidate. Three vacancies of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories fell vacant during the panel year 2017-2018. On the ground that respondent No.3 herein did not have 3 years' service in the feeder category, his case was not considered in the D.P.C. held on 31.8.2018. Contending the same as illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.175, General Administration (Services.A) Department, dated 27.11.2017, respondent No.3 herein filed Original Application No.2198 of 2018. The Tribunal, by way of the order impugned in the present Writ Petition, allowed the said Original Application filed by respondent No.3 herein, holding that respondent No.3 herein/applicant would be entitled for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories in the panel year 2017- 2018 against roster point No.25, and the Tribunal also directed the respondents 1 and 2 to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The Tribunal further held that the respondent No.3 herein/applicant would be entitled for notional seniority and notional fixation of pay.
4. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
3
5. Heard Sri D.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Services for respondents 1 and 2 and Smt. K.M.J.D. Syama Sundari, learned counsel for respondent No.3, apart from perusing the material available before the Court.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that since respondent No.3 herein did not possess the minimum qualifying service as per Rule 6 of the Rules, 1996, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that as on the relevant date i.e. 01.09.2017, since respondent No.3 did not have the requisite qualifying service, the authorities were perfectly justified in overlooking him.
7. On the contrary, it is contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as the writ petitioner herein is not an aggrieved party. It is further contended that respondent No.3 herein is entitled for the relief in the Original Application as per Adhoc Rule notified vide G.O.Ms.No.175, General Administration 4 (Services.A) Department, dated 27.11.2017. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that by the time the D.P.C. met, respondent No.3 had the requisite qualification and eligibility.
8. In the instant case, respondent No.3 was promoted regularly as Inspector of Factories with effect from 12.12.2014 and completed two years' of service in the said category by 12.12.2016. It is not in dispute that 3 vacancies of Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories fell vacant during the panel year 2017-2018. It is also an undisputed reality that roster point No.25 is identified for Scheduled Tribe category. By way of G.O.Ms.No.175, General Administration (Services.A) Department, dated 27.11.2017, an Adhoc Rule was notified by the State Government, reducing the period of service of 3 years, as contemplated under Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, to 2 years, in the feeder category.
9. It is not in dispute that the D.P.C. met on 31.08.2018 for the panel year 2017-2018. Admittedly, as on the date of D.P.C. meeting held on 31.08.2018, the Adhoc Rule notified vide G.O.Ms.No.175, General Administration (Services.A) Department, dated 27.11.2017 was in force, and the said Rule reduced the minimum qualifying service in the feeder category for promotion to the next higher category, from 3 years to 2 years.
5
10. It is also not in controversy that similar cases were considered in other departments and the candidates, who were having 2 years' service as on the date of D.P.C. meeting, were also given promotions. It is also not in dispute, as observed by the Tribunal, that in certain other departments, certain individuals, who had completed two years' of service after 01.09.2017, were also considered in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.175, General Administration (Services.A) Department, dated 27.11.2017. While assigning the said reason, precisely, the Tribunal found discrimination on the part of respondents-authorities in not extending the same to respondent No.3 herein/applicant.
11. It is also not in controversy that the writ petitioner was considered in the D.P.C. against roster point No.26 and was given promotion as Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories on 17.09.2018. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3/applicant, the writ affidavit is absolutely silent as to the locus standi of the writ petitioner to maintain the Writ Petition, and also as to how the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal. But, the fact remains that he had already got promotion to the higher category. Perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, in vivid and candid terms, shows that the Tribunal by assigning cogent and convincing reasons, allowed the Original Application filed by respondent No.3/applicant. It is a settled 6 and well established principle of law that a writ, in the nature of writ of certiorari, cannot be issued unless the order impugned suffers from patent perversity, jurisdictional error or passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Such contingencies are conspicuously absent in the case on hand. Having regard to the above reasons, this Court has no scintilla of hesitation to hold that the Writ Petition is bereft of merits to interfere with the well articulated order of the Tribunal.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J ____________________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
24.02.2020 DRK 7 HE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.5783 OF 2019 24.02.2020 DRK