Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the learned Advocate General, while relying upon the averments in the counter affidavit and also the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondents, submitted that it is within the powers of the Government to upgrade the posts of Language Pandits as School Assistants (Languages) and Physical Education Teachers as School Assistants (Physical Education) in the State and accordingly G.O.Ms.No.17 and G.O.Ms.No.18 both dt.03.02.2017 were issued for upgradation of 2,487 Language Pandits as School Assistants (Languages) and 1,047 Physical Education Teachers as School Assistants (Physical Education) in the State. It is submitted that when the same was challenged before this Court, an interim direction was given on 24.03.2017 and the Government, after careful consideration of the matter, decided to make certain amendments to the ad hoc Rules for Telangana School Educational Subordinate Service Rules for the posts of Teachers in Mandal Praja Parishad and Zilla Praja Parishad in Telangana and W.P.No.10061/2017 & batch (Total 14 Cases) therefore, issued G.O.Rt.No.03, School Education, dt.05.02.2021 and G.O.Ms.No.10 dt.25.03.2021 amending Rule 2 in G.O.Ms.No.12 dt.23.01.2009 to the effect that SGTs were excluded from the feeder category to the posts of School Assistants (Languages) and School Assistants (Physical Education). It is submitted that in view of the said amendments, it was felt necessary to withdraw the upgradation orders issued vide G.O.Ms.No.17 and G.O.Ms.No.18 both dt.03.02.2017 and G.O.Ms.No.15 dt.16.02.2019 which were not given effect to earlier due to the Court orders and therefore, G.O.Ms.No.110, Finance (HRM-II) Department, dt.05.10.2021 was issued. It is submitted that recruitment rules were amended as per the direction of this Court dt.24.03.2017 in W.P.No.10061 of 2017. He thus supported G.O.Ms.No.110 dt.05.10.2021 and submitted that the Government has now given sanction for upgradation of 8,630 posts of Language Pandits as School Assistants (Languages) and 1,849 posts of Physical Education Teachers as School Assistants (Physical Education) in MPUPS/Zilla Parishad/Government Schools in the corresponding revised pay scales of 2020 duly suppressing 392 vacant posts of Secondary Grade Teachers. He therefore justified the action of the respondents. He further submitted W.P.No.10061/2017 & batch (Total 14 Cases) that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah and others Vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao and others (1 supra) has been distinguished by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Raj Kumar and others (2 supra), wherein while considering other decisions on the issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the decision in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah and others Vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao and others (1 supra) is impliedly overruled in various decisions. He further relied upon the principle laid down in the said case to submit that the rights and obligations of a person serving the Union and States are to be considered from the issues governing the service, i.e., "rule in force" as on the date the consideration takes place. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

22. It is therefore necessary to examine whether the vacancies which have arisen prior to the amendment of the Rules in the year 2021 are to be filled up in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah and others Vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao and others (1 supra). A Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Raj Kumar and others (2 supra), while considering the case of the writ petitioners W.P.No.10061/2017 & batch (Total 14 Cases) therein who were seeking promotion to the posts of Labour Officers by way of promotion as per old Rules which existed when the vacancies arose or as per the subsequent amended Rules, has distinguished the decision of Y.V.Rangaiah (1 supra). In the said case, the brief facts are that additional posts were sanctioned and thereafter, Rules came to be amended under the New Rules called the H.P. Labour and Employment Department, Labour Officers, Class-II (Gazetted) Ministerial Service R & P Rules, 2006 and recruitment to the post of Labour Officer was to be made by promotion as well as direct recruitment in the ratio of 75 per cent and 25 per cent respectively and the effect of New Rules coupled with the 7 new posts for Labour Officers is that, from out of the total number of 12 posts of Labour Officers, the promotional posts increased from 5 to 9 (being 75 per cent) and direct recruitment posts came to 3 (being 25 per cent). Immediately thereafter, the Government issued a Notification creating 12 Labour Zones in the State and in such background, the candidates approached the Administrative Tribunal of the State challenging the proposed action of the State Government in filling up 25 per cent of the posts of Labour Officers by direct recruitment. They contended that the vacancies arose in July, 2006, W.P.No.10061/2017 & batch (Total 14 Cases) which is before the promulgation of the New Rules and therefore, all the vacancies must be filled up only by promotion. By its order dt.24.01.2007, the Tribunal directed the State Government to consider the grievance raised by the applicants as if it is a representation to it. The Government thereafter rejected the same on 27.06.2007. The matter has reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering its various judgments both in consonance with its decision in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah and others Vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao and others (1 supra) and also distinguishing the same, has come to the conclusion that Y.V.Rangaiah's case (1 supra) must be seen in the context of its own facts, coupled with declarations therein that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of the rules which existed on the date on which they arose, and held that the decision in Y.V.Rangaiah's case (1 supra) is impliedly overruled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that as there is no declaration of law to this effect, it continues to be cited as a precedent and the Court has distinguished it on some ground or the other and therefore, it was held that the decision in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah and others Vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao and others (1 supra) W.P.No.10061/2017 & batch (Total 14 Cases) is impliedly overruled and that the rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services. For coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the following decisions and the propositions laid down therein.

37.3 The consistent findings in these fifteen decisions that Rangaiah's case must be seen in the context of its own facts, coupled with the declarations therein that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of rules which existed on the date which they arose, compels us to conclude that the decision in Rangaiah is impliedly overruled. However, as there is no declaration of law to this effect, it continues to be cited as a precedent and this Court has been distinguishing it on some ground or the other, as we have indiçated hereinabove. For clarity and certainty, it is, therefore, necessary for us to hold;