Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. V. Ramanamma, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 February, 2020
Author: T. Rajani
Bench: T. Rajani
SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI
WRIT PETITION No.12332 of 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the official respondents in promoting the unofficial respondents as Gazetted Superintendent vide proceedings in Rc.No.E1/36073/2008, dated 25.07.2018, and the action of the 1st respondent in upholding the promotion of the unofficial respondent No.3 and rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the above proceedings, dated 25.07.2018, vide Memo No.Rev.36021/117/Endowments-I(2)/2018, dated 02.08.2019, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in AP Legal Cell, New Delhi, on 03.07.1988 and was transferred to the Office of Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, on 03.05.1991. She was promoted as Senior Assistant on 07.08.2001 and thereafter, she was promoted as Superintendent on 25.07.2008. The Government of Andhra Pradesh have upgraded eight posts of Superintendents in the Office of Commissioner of Endowments, AP, Hyderabad to that of Gazetted Superintendents and one post of Special Category Stenographer to that of Gazetted Special Category Stenographer, vide G.O.Ms.No.42, Finance (SMPC) Department, dated 22.02.2010. Total eight posts of Gazetted Superintendents exist in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh. After bifurcation of the State as per the allocation of employees the post of Gazetted Superintendents have been distributed between the State of Telangana and the State of 2 Andhra Pradesh and five posts of Gazetted Superintendents have been allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh and three posts of Gazetted Superintendents have been allotted to the State of Telangana. As per G.O.Ms.No.2, Social Welfare (SW.ROR-1) Department, dated 09.01.2004, rule of reservation is to be implemented if the cadre strength of a category is more than 5. Therefore, reservation for promotion is not applicable. Contrarily, the 4th respondent was promoted as Gazetted Superintendent under ST quota vide order in Rc.No.E1/36073/2019, dated 25.07.2018, issued by the 2nd respondent. Even the rule of reservation is not applicable. One post of Special category Stenographer was upgraded to that of Gazetted Special Category Stenographer, vide G.O.Ms.No.42, Finance (SMPC) Department, dated 22.02.2010, which is entirely a different cadre. By adding that post of Gazetted Special Category Stenographer to the post of Gazetted Superintendents, the respondents are showing the cadre strength as 6 posts and rule of reservation was applied by creating an impression that the Gazetted posts are more than 5, which is illegal. Hence, the appointment of the 4th respondent has to be set aside.
3. The 2nd respondent filed counter contending that Gazetted Superintendents were excessively allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh in the final allocation and both of them are working as Jewellery Verification Officer, Endowments Department, Kakinada and Kurnool respectively. They were initially allocated to the State of Telangana as they were juniors among the gazetted superintendents for the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Commission during its review 3 enquired the possibilities to accommodate them in the State of Andhra Pradesh and they were accommodated. A proposal was submitted to the Government for creation of two supernumery posts to facilitate the above officers. But the said proposal was rejected. Again a proposal was submitted to the Government and the orders are awaited. According to the Service Rules issued GO Ms.No.572, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 16.11.2018, the Government has mentioned that the post shown in column No.2 are one category. The 1st respondent in the impugned Memo has mentioned the same and therefore, the cadre strength of the said category becomes six. The petitioner would be given her due promotion in her seniority as and when the vacancy arises.
4. The 4th respondent, while denying the averments in the petition, contends that the contentions of the petitioner that rule of reservation should not be followed and the post of Special category Stenographer cannot be equated with the Gazetted Superintendent, are devoid of merit. The Government has issued GO Ms.No.42 in upgrading the post of Superintendents and one post of Special Category Stenographer and G.O.Ms.No.572 in issuance of Service Rules for the said post and made both the posts equal to that of Gazetted Superintendents. Both the posts have to be treated as single category. Hence, without challenging the said decision, the present writ petition is not maintainable.
5. Heard.
4
6. The main argument of the petitioner's counsel is that the Superintendent and the Special Grade Stenographer cannot be considered as one cadre though they are shown in the same category and if the post of Stenographer is not included in the strength of the Superintendents, there would be only five posts available and rule of reservation cannot be applied only if the posts are only five in number. There is no dispute that the rule of reservation would apply in favour of SCs and STs only if the cadre strength is more than five. But, the question that falls for consideration before this court is as to whether the Stenographers and the Superintendents would form the same cadre or not. On facts, that five posts of Superintendents were allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh is not in dispute.
7. The counsel for the respondents relies on Rule 2 of the AP Ministerial Services Rules, wherein it was mentioned that the service shall consist of the following classes and categories of posts in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Under Class A of the said Rule under Category (1), Superintendents are mentioned. Superintendents are defined as follows:
"Superintendents in the Offices of the Heads of Departments, Directorates and other Subordinate Offices, including the posts in the basic scale of pay as that of Superintendents though differently designated but excluding the posts covered by other Special Service Rules."
8. Going by the above definition, the counsel contends that it is not only the designation of the employee as Superintendents in the offices of heads of departments, Directorates, and other Subordinate offices, but also the employees holding posts with the basic scale of pay as that 5 of Superintendents that would come under the category of Superintendents and hence, the contention is that even if they belong to two cadres, the senior Stenographer, who undisputedly draws the basic scale of pay as that of Superintendent, has to be considered as one category. This court finds any amount of force in the said contention.
9. The counsel for the petitioner relies on FR.9, which defines cadre as meaning as separate unit. But he does not dispute that the petitioner and the 4th respondent are governed by A.P.State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996, which defines cadre as the posts in various classes, categories and grades in a service.
10. Hence, going by the above definition and also the Ministerial Rules, no fault can be found with the respondents in including the post of senior stenographer in the category of Superintendents for the purpose of applying rule of reservation for the SCs and STs.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________ T. RAJANI, J February 26, 2020 LMV 6 JUSTICE T.RAJANI WRIT PETITION No.12332 of 2019 February 26, 2020 LMV