The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs T. Devadatham

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

                                   AND

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM


                            W.A.No.13 of 2012
                                  and
                           W.A.No.1244 of 2013


COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha
Reddy)


         These two writ appeals are filed as between the same

parties. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.


         The sole respondent in the appeals was employed as a
Chainman in the appellants - Organisation, on 08.08.1985.            On

completion of five years of service, he was appointed on transfer, or

promoted as Junior Assistant, through order, dated 11.05.1992.
However, a condition was incorporated to the effect that he shall

acquire    qualification    of   intermediate,   as   prescribed   under
G.O.Ms.No.517 General Administration (Ser-B) Department, dated

29.10.1987. According to the respondent, he is not required to pass
intermediate education at all, since he joined the service, on
08.08.1985, and the G.O., does not provide for such contingency.
When he was denied the benefit of increments, he approached this
Court by filing W.P.No.19427 of 1996, with a prayer to direct the
appellant to grant increments. During the pendency of that writ
petition, the appellant passed an order, dated 08.01.2001 reverting
the respondent to the post of Chainman, on the ground that he did
not acquire the intermediate qualification. W.P.No.2645 of 2001 was
filed against the same.
         W.P.No.19427 of 1996 was allowed by a learned Single
Judge through order, dated 01.04.2011, taking the view that the
 respondent is not under obligation to acquire the intermediate
qualification. Taking the said order into account, another learned
Single Judge allowed W.P.No.2645 of 2001, through order, dated

23.06.2011. Hence, these two writ appeals.


       Heard Sri P.Harinath Gupta, learned counsel for the
appellant, and Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondent.


       It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed as
Chainman, on 08.08.1985, and his services were regularised in that

post and that he was promoted as Junior Assistant, on 11.05.1992.
A clause was added in the order of promotion as under:

              "...He should acquire the Educational qualification
        for Junior Assistant post as prescribed in
        G.O.Ms.No.517      General   Administration    (ser-B)
        Department, dated 29.10.1987..."


       Alleging that the respondent did not acquire the qualification,
as provided for in the order of promotion, the increments were denied

to him. Accordingly, W.P.No.19427 of 1996, was filed. Even while
that was pending, the appellant reverted the respondent and that

resulted in filing of the other writ petition. Both of them were allowed.


       The entire controversy revolves around the question as to

whether the respondent was qualified to be promoted as Junior
Assistant, in the year 1991, though he did not possess the

intermediate qualification. A subsidiary question would be as to
whether the imposition of the condition in the order of promotion,

dated 11.05.1992 as to acquisition of qualification, is referable to any

statutory rule.   The respondent passed S.S.C., before he was
appointed as Chainman. That incidentally was the qualification for

the post of Junior Assistant, when he was appointed as Chainman.
 The Government in General Administration Department revised the

qualification for the post of Junior Assistant to pass any intermediate
examination, through G.O.Ms.No.517, dated 29.10.1987.            Even

there, an exception was carved out, in the matter of recruitment by
transfer from lower categories. A proviso was added to the effect

that, in case a Record Assistant, or employee holding other

equivalent post, which is a feeder category to Junior Assistant,
joined the Head of Department, before 15.12.1984, he will be

entitled to be appointed through transfer as Junior Assistant, if he
has passed S.S.C. examination. For other offices, the due date is

stipulated as 29.07.1987.


       In the context of appellant, two aspects become relevant. The

first is whether it answers the description of Head of Department or
not, and if so, from when onwards. The second is as to whether the

amendment caused to the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules
has been adopted by the appellant.        On both the aspects, the

appellant is silent.


       Today, a memo, dated 23.09.3013, issued by the Special
Secretary to Government in Municipal Administration Department is

placed before this Court. According to this, a list of agencies, which
are said to be Heads of Departments, under the administrative
control of Municipal Administration Urban Development Department,

is furnished and that included the name of the appellant. From this, it
is difficult to conclude that the appellant has been designated as
Head of Department, for the purpose of the Ministerial Service
Rules. At any rate, the date from which such a status was conferred

upon the appellant, is not indicated. Secondly and more importantly,
the Rules framed by the Government for its service are not per se
applicable to the appellant, which is an independent statutory

authority.   To be precise, the appellant was created under the
 Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas Development Act and it is supposed
to have its own service rules, governing the conditions of service of
its employees. If for the sake of convenience, it has adopted the

rules framed by the Government, it should be through a specific
resolution. Assuming that the Ministerial Service Rules have been
adopted, there is nothing on record to disclose that a subsequent
amendment has been adopted.             The respective learned Judges

have taken these aspects into account and allowed the writ
petitions.


       What is more important is that,
       (a)                no time, as such, was stipulated in the order of
                     promotion, dated 11.05.1992 for acquiring the
                     intermediate qualification;

       (b)                      the order of reversion was passed after
                     W.P.No.19427 of 1996 was allowed, holding that
                     the appellant is not entitled to insist on intermediate

                     qualification, vis-à-vis the respondent and
       (c)                   the reversion was effected after 10 years of
                     unblemished service of the respondent.
       Viewed from any angle, we do not find any basis to interfere

with the orders under appeals.


       The Writ Appeals are accordingly dismissed. We, however,

direct that, in case the appellant pays the amounts representing the
increments till the date of reversion, within six (6) weeks from today,
they shall not be under obligation to pay difference of salary, from the

date of reversion till today. In default, they shall be under obligation
to pay the difference of salary also for the period during which the
respondent was under reversion. The respondent shall be entitled to
function as Junior Assistant, from today onwards. There shall be no

order as to costs.
       The miscellaneous petitions filed in these appeals shall also

stand disposed of.

                                        ____________________
                                     L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

_____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J. Date:22.09.2014 GJ