THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.7976 of 2023
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel
for the petitioner; Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel
representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy
Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1; and
Mr. P.Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh for respondents No.5 to 7.
2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of the order dated 13.03.2023 issued by respondent No.1 allotting respondent No.8 to the State of Telangana.
2
3. The challenge has been made on the ground that such allocation is contrary to Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (briefly, "the Act" hereinafter).
4. Petitioner before us is serving as Joint Director Class-A, Sangareddy District, under the Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Government of Telangana. She is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.03.2023, as the allotment of respondent No.8 to the State of Telangana in the cadre of Joint Director in the office of Director of Animal Husbandry would jeopardise her career prospects, including by way of promotion.
5. From a perusal of the order dated 13.03.2023 we find that following bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh into two separate States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, respondent No.8 was allocated to Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 14.01.2016. This came to be challenged by him before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal 3 (Tribunal) in O.A.No.209 of 2016. An interim order was passed on 29.01.2016 staying the final allocation and allowing respondent No.8 to continue his duty at Telangana. Since there was delay in disposal of O.A.No.209 of 2016, respondent No.8 filed a writ petition before this Court, being W.P.No.4391 of 2016, seeking revision of allocation. However, vide order dated 16.02.2016, the writ petition was dismissed with a direction to the Tribunal to pass a speaking order within two weeks.
6. In the meanwhile, Tribunal was abolished whereafter O.A.No.209 of 2016 was transferred to the High Court where it was registered as W.P (TR).No.5482 of 2017.
7. This Court by order dated 08.12.2020 allowed the writ petition by directing the Government of India in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, to permanently allocate respondent No.8 to the State of Telangana with 4 effect from 14.01.2016; and further directing the State of Telangana to give him posting commensurate with his service status and also to release his pay and allowances with interest.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, State of Telangana as well as State of Andhra Pradesh filed S.L.P (C).Nos.1565-1566 of 2021 before the Supreme Court. Both the special leave petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 14.09.2022 by upholding the order of the High Court.
9. In the meanwhile, alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order of the High Court, respondent No.8 has filed contempt case before this Court, being Contempt Case No.739 of 2022.
10. Thereafter, Government of India in exercise of powers under Section 77(3) of the Act revised the final allocation of respondent No.8 from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana. As a 5 consequence, the impugned order came to be passed in the following manner:
9. Dr. B.Subba Rayudu, Joint Director Class-A shall be adjusted against an available regular vacancy of Joint Director in the Office of Director of Animal Husbandry, Telangana. However, in case of non- availability of vacancy, Telangana Government shall, either accommodate the petitioner by creating a supernumerary post or adjust against the regular analogous post, till a future vacancy arises in the cadre of Joint Director, O/o. Director of Animal Husbandry, Telangana.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner could not have contested the claim of respondent No.8 at any stage prior to recasting of the final allocation by the Central Government. Now that the same has been made, she has made the challenge. If respondent No.8 is allowed to serve in Telangana, it would adversely affect the career prospects of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that at the time of filing special leave petitions by the two States, Supreme Court 6 had passed an interlocutory order on 22.02.2021 clarifying that respondent No.8 should be given a posting in the State of Andhra Pradesh which he should join and upon joining he should be paid his salary and allowances. Though finally the special leave petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court vide the order dated 14.09.2022, he submits that there are certain factual errors in the deliberation of the Supreme Court insofar determination of the domicile status of respondent No.8 in Telangana is concerned. That apart, the said decision may also be questionable in the light of Section 77 of the Act. Therefore, review petition has been filed by the State of Telangana.
12. We are afraid, we cannot accept the contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Supreme Court by a detailed judgment dated 14.09.2022 has dismissed S.L.P (C).Nos.1565-1566 of 2021 filed by State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2020 passed by this 7 Court allowing the writ petition of respondent No.8. Therefore, the judgment and order dated 08.12.2020 has attained finality.
13. It is needless to mention that when a petition is dismissed, the interim order passed at an earlier stage would automatically stand nullified by dismissal of the petition. Supreme Court having finally put its seal of approval to the reallocation of respondent No.8 to the State of Telangana, it would not be open for this Court to go behind the order passed by the Supreme Court. Mere pendency of review petition before the Supreme Court without stay would be no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.03.2023 which is nothing but a consequential order to give effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court.
14. We therefore do not find any merit in the writ petition warranting interference.
15. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 8
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 23.03.2023 vs