Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K John Lincoln vs The Commissioner For Panchayat ... on 14 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: W.P.No. 20264 of 2021
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
14.09.2021 DVSS, J
WP.No.20264 of 2021
Notice before admission.
List on 20.10.2021.
____________
DVSS,J
I.A.No.1 of 2021
Government Pleader for Services IV appears
for respondent Nos.1,2 and 3.
Sri Srinivasula Reddy appears for
respondent No.4.
Government Pleader for Services I appears
for respondent Nos.5 and 6.
Sri R.V.Mallikarjuna Rao appears for
respondent No.7.
The issues raised in this writ petition are
very similar to the issues that were raised in a
two batches of writ petitions which were filed
arising out of a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of M.Surender Reddy
v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others.
Earlier, when the Officers who rendered
long services were displaced from their
position, a number of stay orders were granted
by this Court directing the respondents not to
disturb the postings of the writ petitioners in
that batch.
The present petitioner was appointed as
Extension Officer (PR&RD) in the year 2005.
According to the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, he has
rendered 16 years of service, his services were
regularized in the category of Extension Officer
and also as MPDO. Probation was also
declared. At this stage, on 06.09.2021 the
impugned proceedings are issued by which the
petitioner who has rendered 16 years of service
is again re-posted in the same zone and for the
same post, but with effect from September,
2021. Learned counsel therefore contends
that after rendering services for 16 years in the
same post and after securing the consequent
promotions, the petitioner cannot again be
posted in the very same primary post in same
District and Zone.
Learned Government Pleader for Services-I
on the other hand submits that the State is
only trying to implement the orders passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which
directed the State to re-fix the selection lists.
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
It is also submitted that the initial
appointment of the petitioner is purely
temporary and adhoc and therefore is liable to
be re-posted as mentioned in the order.
Government Pleader for Services-IV also
supports the argument and argues that there
is nothing wrong in the impugned proceedings
since the initial appointment itself is
temporary and adhoc.
Sri R.V.Mallikarjuna Rao, on the other
hand submits that the APPSC did not give the
final selection list nor was it consulted by the
State in this matter. He submits that in view
of the conflicting stands taken by two
departments, the present situation has arisen.
After considering the submissions made,
this Court is of the opinion that larger issues
are involved in this matter which require more
detailed hearing after counter affidavits are
filed by the respondents setting out their cases
in detail. The fact remains that after 16 years,
the petitioner is being reposted
Therefore, at this stage, without going
further into the matter, as a prima facie case is
made out, there shall be an interim order as
prayed for suspending the operation of the
impugned proceedings dated 06.09.2021
issued by respondent No.1 and directing the
respondents to retain and continue the
petitioner in the present post, for a period of
four weeks.
____________
DVSS,J
KLP
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
