Telangana High Court
V.Srinivasa Rao, Son Of Krishna Prasad, vs M.Chennakeshvulu, Working As Leading ... on 22 January, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA,
HYDERABAD
***
i. Writ Petition Nos.30581 of 2012 and 46084 of 2022
Between:
Mr. V. Srinivasa Rao & others
Petitioners
Versus
Mr. M. Chennakeshavulu & others
Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 22.01.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
__________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
::2:: AKS,J & LNA,J
wp_30581_2012
&
wp_46084_2022
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
+ Writ Petition Nos.30581 of 2012 and 46084 of 2022
% 22.01.2025
Between:
# V. Srinivasa Rao & others
... Petitioners
And
# M. Chennakeshavulu & others
... Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioners : Sri M. Srikanth and
Sri P.V. Krishnaiah
^Counsel for the respondents : Learned Government Pleader for
official respondents;
Sri M. Surender Rao for
contesting respondents.
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2003) 6 S.C.C. 535
::3:: AKS,J & LNA,J
wp_30581_2012
&
wp_46084_2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Writ Petition Nos.30581 of 2012 and 46084 of 2022
COMMON ORDER :(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Both these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order since the issue raised in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same.
2. Both the Writ Petitions are filed aggrieved by the order passed in O.A.No.7375 of 2008 vide order, dated 13.07.2012 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') and these Writ Petitions are filed with the leave of the Court, as they were not parties before the Tribunal.
3. Heard Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel and Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for official respondents and Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.
::4:: AKS,J & LNA,J
wp_30581_2012
&
wp_46084_2022
4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in
W.P.No.30581 of 2012 are hereunder discussed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the petitioners are working as Driver Operators, while the contesting respondents are working as Leading Firemen. The contesting respondents have filed O.A.No.7375 of 2008 before the Tribunal, challenging Rule- 3 of the A.P. Fire Subordinate Service Rules, 1992 (for short, 'the Rules'), issued vide G.O.Ms.No.568, dated 24.11.1992, which pertains to the promotion of Station Fire Officer from the post of Driver operator. The contesting respondents contended that the post of Leading Firemen is superior to that of Driver Operator. Both the posts of Leading Firemen and Driver Operator are made as feeder categories for promotion to the post of Station Fire Officer. The contesting respondents further contended that the post of Driver Operator, an inferior post, was considered for promotion to the post of Station Fire Officer, whereas, the post of Leading Firemen, being a superior post was equated with inferior post for promotion to the post of Station Fire ::5:: AKS,J & LNA,J wp_30581_2012 & wp_46084_2022 Officer and the Leading Firemen was made to work under Driver Operators if they are promoted as Station Fire Officer.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that the Tribunal has allowed the said O.A. by setting aside the Rule-3 of the Rules, wherein, the post of Driver Operator included in Category-4 is made as feeder category to the post of Station Fire Officer was held to be bad in law and the same was set aside, thereby depriving the promotional avenues of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that the State has not filed counter and in the absence of counter, the Tribunal has set aside the Rule, which is detrimental to the Driver Operators.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the Tribunal, has relied on para 511 of Chapter XXVI of A.P.Fire Service Manual, wherein, it states that the Leading Firemen can be kept as in charge of a Station during the temporary absence on leave of the Station Officer. Based on this the Tribunal has come to a ::6:: AKS,J & LNA,J wp_30581_2012 & wp_46084_2022 conclusion that the Leading Firemen is a superior post than the Driver Operator. Learned counsel had further contended that the said observations made by the Tribunal is totally erroneous, as the pay scales of Leading firemen and the Driver Operator are one and the same and both the posts are made as feeder category for promotion to the post of Station Fire Officer. Additionally, after successfully completing four months of training, Driver Operators are equally qualified and they are not less inferior to that of Leading Firemen. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the Rule-3 of the Rules.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that if the Rule is struck down and Driver Operators are removed from the feeder category, then they would be left with no promotional avenues. Learned counsel for the petitioners had relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Dwarka Prasad and others v. Union of India 1, wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the fixation of quotas or 1 (2003) 6 SCC 535 ::7:: AKS,J & LNA,J wp_30581_2012 & wp_46084_2022 different avenues and ladders for promotion in favour of various categories of posts in feeder cadres based upon the structure and pattern of the Department is a prerogative of the employer. In the instant case, the State Government has framed the Rules making Leading Firemen and Driver Operator as feeder category for promotion to the post of Station Fire Officer. The Tribunal could not have set aside the Rule, wherein, the Driver Operator was included in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Station Fire Officer. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed by the Writ Petitions by setting the order, dated 13.07.2012 passed in O.A.No.7375 of 2008 by the Tribunal and allow the Writ Petitions.
9. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents had contended that the post of Leading Firemen is included in Catetory-3, whereas, Driver Operator is included in Category-4, which demonstrates that the Driver Operator is an inferior post. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that the State has treated un-equals as equals and the Tribunal was justified in ::8:: AKS,J & LNA,J wp_30581_2012 & wp_46084_2022 allowing the O.A. in favour of the contesting respondents. Learned counsel further contended that Section 2 (m) of the Telangana Fire Services Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act') clearly states that when the Officer-in-charge of Fire Station is absent from the station or unable to discharge due to illness or other cause to perform his duties, then the fire officer next in rank to such officer shall perform his duties. As such, whenever the Station Fire Officer is not available, then the Leading Firemen will take the charge to control the Fire Station. Learned counsel had further contended that the Act defines "Service" as the fire service established and maintained under the Act. Admittedly, the State Government has not framed any new Rules following the promulgation of the Act. The existing Rules were issued under Go.Ms.No.568, dated 24.11.1992 and remained unaltered. Section 6 of the Act stipulates that the appointment of members of the service, where the Director General or such other officer of the services as the Government may authorise in this behalf may appoint members of the service in accordance with the Rules made there under this Act. However, since no new Rules have ::9:: AKS,J & LNA,J wp_30581_2012 & wp_46084_2022 been framed under the Act, the appointments continue to be governed by outdated provisions. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that the Leading Firemen would be getting their promotions at the fag end of their career, whereas, the Driver Operators are being promoted to the post of Station Fire Officer ahead of the contesting respondents (Leading Firemens), that necessitated the contesting respondents to challenge Rule-3 of the Rules and the Tribunal was justified in coming to a conclusion that un-equals were treated as equals. The post of Driver Operator, being an inferior post than that of Leading Firemen is made as feeder category for promotion to the post of Station Fire Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal after examining the qualifications of Leading Firemen and the Driver Operator has come to a conclusion that the Driver Operator is an inferior post and also concluded that equating Driver Operators with Leading Firemen and making the Driver Operator as a feeder category to the next promotional post of Station Forest Officer was improper.
::10:: AKS,J & LNA,J
wp_30581_2012
&
wp_46084_2022
10. Learned Senior Counsel had further drawn attention to Rule 16 of A.P. Fire and Emergency Operations and Levy of Fee Rules, 2006, wherein, it specifies that members of the fire service shall act in accordance with the procedure and attendance at Fire Station as provided under Chapter XXIX of the A.P. Fire Service Manual and moreover, the members of fire service not below the rank of Station Fire Officer and officer in charge of the fire station and the Leading Firemen, in cases where the Station Fire Officer is absent shall act in accordance with Chapter XXVII of the Manual. A perusal of the Rule-16 of A.P. Fire and Emergency Operations and Levy of Fee Rules makes it clear that if the Station Fire Officer is not available then, the Leading Firemen takes charge of the Station Fire Officer, which clearly indicates that the Leading Firemen is superior than that of Driver Operator. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the Rule-3 of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.568, dated 24.11.1992, to the extent of making the Driver Operator as feeder category for promotion to the post of Station Fire Officer. Therefore, ::11:: AKS,J & LNA,J wp_30581_2012 & wp_46084_2022 there are no merits in both the Writ Petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.
11. This Court, having considered the submissions made by both the parties is of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside Rule-3 of the Rules in the absence of counter from the State Government. The Tribunal could not have come to a conclusion that the Driver Operator is an inferior post than the Leading firemen. The issue as to whether fixing the ratio or feeder categories is concerned, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Dwarka Prasad's case has held that the fixation of quotas or providing different avenues and ladders for promotion in favour of various categories of posts in feeder cadres based upon the structure and pattern of the Department is a prerogative of the employer. Admittedly, in the instant case, it is evident that the State, in its wisdom, considered the posts of Leading Firemen and the Driver Operator to be equivalent and therefore, included both the posts as feeder category for promotion to the post of Station Fire Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside ::12:: AKS,J & LNA,J wp_30581_2012 & wp_46084_2022 the Rule-3 of the Rules as issued in G.O.Ms.No.568, dated 24.11.1992, to the extent of making Driver Operator as a feeder category for promotion.
12. The contention of the contesting respondents that new Rules have to be framed in accordance with Act is concerned, it is always for the State Government to frame appropriate Rules in accordance with the Act. Section 2 (p) of the Act, mandates that "Service" refers to the fire service established and maintained under the Act. Therefore, the State Government is directed to examine the Rules and formulate the Rules required under the Act. While framing these new Rules, it is always open for the State to stipulate the feeder category for promotion to the post of Station Fire Officer, taking all relevant cases into consideration. The Tribunal could not have set aside Rule-3 of the Rules, thereby taking away the promotional avenues of the Driver Operator. Therefore, the order, dated 13.07.2012 passed in O.A.No.7375 of 2008 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside and the State Government is directed to examine this matter and frame the Rules under ::13:: AKS,J & LNA,J wp_30581_2012 & wp_46084_2022 the Act in accordance with the law, as expeditiously as possible.
13. With these observations/directions, both these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date : 22.01.2025 Note:
Mark the L.R. copy B/o.
Prat