The Andhra Pradesh High Court, held that although the petitioners at first glance may appear appealing, a deeper analysis reveals a potentially disastrous outcome as it stands as an antithesis to the “Doctrine of Equality”, which is one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution of India.
The court dismissed the petition that sought the issuance of an appropriate writ, specifically one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, to declare the respondents' action of not appointing or absorbing the petitioners as attenders/Class IV in the Judicial Ministerial Service as unlawful.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners were appointed as Full Time Masalchis in various Courts of the 3rd respondent. Considering the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent through proceedings dated 26.02.2005, appointed the masalchis, who fulfilled the conditions, as Attenders. The 1st petitioner made representation on 02.05.2019 to the 3rd respondent requesting to absorb him as a Regular Attender. However, the 3rd respondent returned his representation on the ground that the appointment of the petitioners as Full Time Masalchis does not confer any right to claim future absorption as a Class IV employee. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that though the petitioners have completed more than 10 years of service as full-time Masalchies, they are only receiving Rs.3,850/- per month along with allowances, making with very difficult to support their families with such meager salaries.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the petitioners were drawing a minimum pay of Rs.3,850/- and the same was enhanced periodically and presently they are drawing a salary of Rs.13,000/- per month. He argued that the representation preferred by the petitioners dated 02.05.2019 by petitioner No.1 seeking absorption as regular attender was rejected by the 3rd respondent on 03.06.2019.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the petitioners are challenging the inaction of the respondents in appointing/absorbing them as attenders in the Judicial Ministerial Service, even though they have completed more than 15/10/5 years of service as full-time Masalchis in the 3rd respondent unit as illegal and arbitrary and are claiming rights similar to those of persons who were absorbed as Class-IV employees as per the Circular dated 06.01.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent.
The Court observed that if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis, that benefit cannot be relied upon on the ground of parity or equality. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. The Court said that although the petitioners at first glance may appear appealing, a deeper analysis reveals a potentially disastrous outcome as it stands as an antithesis to the “Doctrine of Equality”, which is one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution of India.
The decision of the Court:
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the case of the writ petitioners is liable to be dismissed.
Case Title: Naramamidi Rambabu & Ors. v The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Hon’ble Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO: 7231/2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sreenivasa Rao Velivela
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. S. S. Nageswarareddy
Tags :
