THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.13479 OF 2003
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioners are seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent in Ref. Memo No.NEDCAP/Pers/SL/2003 dt.07.05.2003 in maintaining separate seniority lists for Degree and Diploma holders in the promotional post of Assistant Managers/District Managers (Tech) and seeking to maintain the same even for further promotional posts of Managers (Tech) as illegal, arbitrary, etc., and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the Corporation by name A.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited ('Agros Limited' for short) was formed and subsequently another organisation called Agro Pumpsets and Implements Limited ('APIL' for short) came into existence as a subsidiary to Agros Limited. Petitioners 1 and 2 have joined the services W.P.No.13479 of 2003 2 of Agros Limited as Junior Engineers on 01.01.1969 and 22.01.1969 respectively. Initially, the said post was called as Chargeman and later it was re-designated as Junior Engineer and it was subsequently again re- designated as Engineer. On the formation of APIL, applications were called for from suitable candidates for appointment to the posts Assistant Managers (AMs)/District Managers (DMs) carrying higher pay and designation than the pay and designation of the Engineers working in Agros Limited. Both the petitioners have applied for the said post and were issued orders of appointment appointing them as AMs/DMS with certain terms and conditions. The said orders protected the earlier service with all the benefits with Agros Limited and it was also stated that separate seniority lists will be maintained for Graduates and Diploma Engineers as per the seniority lists then presently maintained by Agros Limited. The posts of AMs/DMs are both equivalent posts, i.e., if a person is working in District Office, he will be called as District Manager (DM) and if he is transferred and posted at Head Office, he will be called as Assistant Manager (AM) and both carry equal pay and allowances.
W.P.No.13479 of 2003 3
3. Subsequently, the name of APIL was changed as NEDCAP Limited, i.e., Non-Conventional Energy Development Corporation of A.P. Limited. In order to set right the anomalies in the structure of pay of the employees who joined from the services of Agros Limited vis-à- vis the employees later directly recruited, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter dt.19.04.1991 to the 1st respondent requesting to accord necessary permission and on consideration of the same, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.165, Energy, Forests, Environment, Science and Technology (Res) Department, dt.29.06.1992 allowing the pay scale of Rs.1980 - 3500 to the existing AMs/DMs who have been absorbed from Agros Limited, against their then existing scale of pay of Rs.1810 - 3230 with effect from 01.04.1990 and the future recruits were allowed the scale of pay of Rs.1810 - 3230. It is submitted that the benefit was given to the petitioners in recognition of their experience and seniority in Agros Limited.
4. It is submitted that the condition of maintaining a separate seniority list of Diploma holders and Graduates was only to protect the seniority of the petitioners in Agros Limited, but after promotion as W.P.No.13479 of 2003 4 AMs/DMs along with other recruits of the 2nd respondent Corporation, a common and integrated seniority list of Degree holders and Diploma holders ought to have been maintained. It is submitted that in the 2nd respondent Corporation, there were posts of Development Officers (DOs) and Assistant Development Officers (ADOs) and Graduate Engineers were recruited to the post of Development Officers, while Diploma holders were recruited to the post of Assistant Developments Officer who used to carry lesser scale of pay than the scale of pay of the Development Officers. It is submitted that in the year 1999, for the first time, promotions were given to the posts of AMs/DMs and both DOs and ADOs were made feeder posts to the post of AMs/DMs and after effecting promotions in the ratio of 1:1, both the posts of DOs and ADOs were clubbed together and re-designated as Development Officers giving them equal pay and even after promotions to the posts AMs/DMs, separate seniority lists were being maintained for Degree holders and Diploma holders in the post of Development Officers. It is submitted that in the year 2001/2002, again promotions were given from the post of Development Officers to the post of AMs/DMs and a provisional seniority list of AMs/DMs was communicated by the 2nd W.P.No.13479 of 2003 5 respondent through his Circular dt.07.04.2003. It is submitted that in the said list, respondents 3 to 6 were shown separately under the head of 'Decree Holders', while the petitioners were shown separately as 'Diploma Holders'. It is submitted that respondents 3 to 5 were promoted as AMs/DMs in the year 1999 from the initial post of Development Officers, while respondent No.6 was promoted to the said post of AM/DM in the year 2001, whereas the petitioners had joined the 2nd respondent organisation as AM/DM in the year 1984. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioners is that they are seniors to respondents 3 to 6 who have been promoted only in the years 1999-2001. It is submitted that maintenance of two separate seniority lists between Graduate holders and Diploma holders even after their promotion as AMs/DMs is without any basis. It is submitted that separate seniority lists for Degree holders and Diploma holders can only be maintained till they are appointed in the feeder category, but once all of them have been appointed as Assistant Manager/District Manager, a common and integrated seniority list has to be prepared.
5. In view thereof, the petitioners have made a representation to the official respondents on 17.04.2003, but without considering any of the W.P.No.13479 of 2003 6 contentions of the petitioners therein, the 2nd respondent has passed orders finalising the provisional seniority list and the same was communicated vide letter dt.07.05.2003. The petitioners were communicated only the list of AMs (Tech) with Diploma qualifications and separate final seniority list of AMs (Tech) with Degree qualification was communicated to respondents 3 to 6. The petitioners again made another representation to the 2nd respondent on 12.05.2003, but the 2nd respondent did not take any action thereon.
6. It is submitted that the petitioners and 14 others had earlier filed W.P.No.15875 of 1995 to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the respondent therein is obliged to provide equal opportunity to the Diploma DMs/AMs along with Degree DMs/AMs in the matter of all service benefits including promotion without prescribing any ratio between two categories for promotion to the next higher post of Manager and consequently to direct the respondents to effect promotions to the post of Manager with equal opportunity without any ratio. This Court has dismissed the said Writ Petition on 23.12.1997 upholding the fixation of ratio of 1:1 for promotion to the next higher post of Manager from the post of District Manager. It is however W.P.No.13479 of 2003 7 submitted that in the said Writ Petition, the 2nd respondent sought to maintain separate lists for Degree and Diploma holders even amongst the 29 individuals absorbed from Agros Limited in the post of AMs/DMs, but it was not against the Degree holders directly recruited from open market later to the appointments of the petitioners. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the decision of the High Court has no application to the facts of the present case.
7. It is further submitted that in the year 1995, the 2nd respondent had addressed a letter dt.01.08.1995 to the Agros Limited requesting to intimate the policy regarding promotions and the ratio being maintained between Degree and Diploma holders and Agros Limited had replied to the 2nd respondent stating that the said Corporation is following the ratio of 1:1 between Degree and Diploma holders according to their seniority in the cadre of Engineers. It was categorically informed that Agros Limited was not following the above ratio for promotion of AMs/Area Managers to the post of Deputy Managers or as Managers. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent which is the subsidiary of Agros Limited has to follow the same policy until a separate policy has been formulated by the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that till W.P.No.13479 of 2003 8 date no separate policy has been formulated by the 2nd respondent. It is further submitted that the preparation of final seniority list without giving any notice to the petitioners is against principles of natural justice. Thus, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition challenging the maintenance of two separate seniority lists in respect of Degree holders and Diploma holders in the very same post of AMs/DMs.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, while reiterating the submissions made in the writ affidavit, has drawn the attention of this Court extensively to the appointment letters, the terms and conditions of appointments and also the policy of promotions of Agros Limited as intimated to the 2nd respondent. He submitted that the 2nd respondent has not given any reasons for not accepting the objections of the petitioners to the provisional seniority list dt.07.04.2003. Therefore, according to him, it is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. He also referred to the averments made by the petitioners in the reply affidavit, wherein it is clearly stated that no promotion policy has been evolved by the 2nd respondent and since there W.P.No.13479 of 2003 9 is no denial of some of the contentions raised by the petitioners, they have to be considered as admitted/accepted by the respondents.
9. The learned counsel representing respondent No.2, Sri Singam Srinivasa Rao, however relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the issue is now res judicata as the very same issue relating to maintenance of separate seniority lists for Diploma holders and Graduate holders had come up before this Court in a Writ Petition filed by one of the petitioners herein with 14 others in W.P.No.15875 of 1995 and this Court has upheld the said policy. He submitted that one of the petitioners herein being one of the petitioners therein has raised the very same issue in this Writ Petition and therefore, this Writ Petition is not maintainable. He further submitted that the General Body of the respondent organisation has passed a resolution to maintain separate seniority lists for Diploma holders and Degree holders and to promote them in the ratio of 1:1 and therefore, according to him, there is no prejudice caused to the petitioners in granting promotions.
10. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents, W.P.No.13479 of 2003 10 i.e., respondents 3 to 6 have joined the 2nd respondent organisation in the category of AMs/DMs. While the petitioners joined in the year 1984, the unofficial respondents have joined in the years 1999-2001. Admittedly, both the petitioners as well as respondents 3 to 6 have joined in the category of AMs/DMs. At the time of appointment itself, it was clearly mentioned that the seniority of the petitioners in Agros Limited would be maintained and a separate seniority list would be prepared for such purpose between the Diploma holders and Degree holders. In the year 1995, when separate seniority lists were prepared between Diploma holders and Graduate holders of all the candidates who have been absorbed from Agros Limited, a Writ Petition in W.P.No.15875 of 1995 was filed. This Court has gone into the issue as to the desirability and reasonableness of maintaining separate seniority lists between Diploma holders and Degree holders and has upheld the same. The relevant portion of the said order is as under:
"It is, therefore, clear that the judgment in N.Abdul Basheer Vs. K.K.Karunakaran is distinguishable on facts as in the said decision graduate and non-graduate Excise Prohibition Inspectors were not treated separately throughout their service, their pay scales were same and the seniority list is one and the same and they were discharging same functions and no distinction was maintained W.P.No.13479 of 2003 11 between the graduate and non-graduate Excise Inspectors at any time and they were treated as belonging to one cadre from its inception. While in the present case the distinction between graduate Dist. Managers and diploma Dist. Managers is maintained separately both for the purpose of pay and also for the purpose of seniority from its inception though no doubt they were discharging same functions. In view of the above, the judgment in N.Abdul Basheer Vs. K.K. Karunakaran is not relevant to the facts of the present case.
It follows from the above, the fixation of ratio of 1:1 for promotion to the next higher post namely Manager from the post of Dist. Manager (Degree-holders and Diploma holders) is not in violation of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the classification is based on higher educational qualifications. Further, the petitioner's contention is also without any substance if the issue is examined from another angle. Strictly speaking both the graduates and non-graduates are treated equally as the posts are to be filled up in the ratio of 1:1. Since the posts available are 5, graduates are getting 3 posts while non-graduates are getting two posts, had there been six posts both graduates and non-graduates would have got equal number of posts.
In any view of the matter there is no substance in the argument of the petitioner. The Writ petition is therefore, devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
11. Therefore, it is obvious that this Court has already considered the issue of maintaining separate seniority lists in the cadre of AMs/DMs on the basis of educational qualifications for the promotion to the post of W.P.No.13479 of 2003 12 Managers. In the present case also, the petitioners are challenging the maintenance of separate seniority lists between Diploma holders and Graduate holders for next promotion to the post of Manager. Therefore, though seniority lists may be of different years, the principle is the same and since the order of this Court has not been challenged by the petitioners, the order of this Court has become final and it applies as res judicata in respect of the unofficial respondents herein.
12. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 02.12.2022 Svv