Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
J. Bheemasankara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 August, 2022
Bench: Dr K Rao
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.7740 of 2022
ORDER :
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for the following relief:-
"...to issue writ order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
2nd respondent in issuing Memo in
Rc.No.E2/15022/19/2019, dated 18.6.2021 and escaping
from the liability of filling up the Grade-I Executive Officer
posts by appointment by transfer of temple Superintendents
as per G.O.Ms.No.262, dated 20.5.2002, as bad, illegal,
arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution
of India and consequentially set aside the Memo dated
18.6.2021 and direct the 2nd respondent to complete the
exercise of filling up of the vacant posts in the cadre of
Executive Officer Gr-I fixing the seniority from the date of
vacancy as expeditiously as possible and pass such other
order or orders......."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner initially
appointed as Tank Watchman on 1.4.1993 thereafter his
services were regularized as Junior Assistant on 01.01.2001 in
the establishment of Sri Bheemeswara Swamy vari Temple,
Draksharamam Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East
Godavari District. Thereafter, he was promoted as Senior
Assistant on 06.09.2008 and later he was promoted as
Superintendent on 03.08.2011. The petitioner has passed all
the departmental tests and he is fully eligible for appointment
by transfer of service as Executive Officer-Grade-I. It is further
stated that on earlier occasion the petitioner has preferred
W.P.No.21393 of 2015 and this Court granted interim orders
directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner
for appointment by transfer of service as Executive Officer
Grade-I from the date of promotion as Superintendent..
Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued Memo dated 27.8.2016
rejected the claim of the petitioner and as such the petitioner
has filed C.C No.1302 of 2017 before this Court and the same
was closed vide order dated 08.02.2018.
It is further stated that the petitioner has filed
representation to the 1st respondent on 17.1.2019, 18.4.2019,
9.7.2019 and 29.7.2019 to consider his case. Though the
respondents have not taken any action, again the petitioner
preferred W.P.No.11491 of 2019 before this Court and the
same was disposed of directed the respondents to consider the
representations of the petitioner in accordance with law at the
earliest time, vide order dated 20.08.2019. However, the
respondents have not considered the representations of the
petitioner, again he preferred C.C. No.1127 of 2019. During
pendency of the said C.C., the 2nd respondent issued Memo
dated 3.3.2020 wherein the earlier rejection proceedings Memo
dated 27.8.216 was withdrawn and the petitioner was shown
in the eligibility list of the Superintendents. Thereafter another
Memo dated 18.6.2021 was issued mentioning that his case for
appointment by transfer will be considered as and when his
turn comes and recording the said submission, the
C.C.No.11127 of 2019 was closed vide order dated 11.03.2022
leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the above
proceedings. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is
filed.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent while
denying all the allegations made in the petition contended that
the representations of the petitioner dated 17.01.2019,
18.04.2019, 09.07.2019 and 29.07.2019 were disposed of by
the 2nd respondent vide Memo in Rc.No.E2/15022/90/2019,
dated 18.06.2021 and informed that the seniority list of
Executive Officer, Gr-II in Zone-II have to be revised since 2006
as per the orders of this High Court dated 6.8.2019 passed in
WP No.10495 of 2019 filed by Mr. M.Satyanarayana Raju,
Executive Officer, Gr-I in Zone-II. Action is initiated to
complete the exercise of preparation of Seniority list as per
Court Orders. Instructions were issued to the Deputy
Commissioner of Zones concerned to prepare seniority list of
Temple Employees in the categories of Superintendent, Senior
Assistant and Junior Assistant and Executive Officers, Gr-III,
Executive Officers, Gr-II and Executive Officers, Gr-I
(Provisional), as per the guidelines issued by the 2nd
respondent vide U.O.Note in Rc.No.D2/751/2011, dated
30.04.2013 and instructions issued in Government Memo
No.18216/Endts.I/2015 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department,
dated 4.8.2015.
It is further stated that the petitioner herein was
specifically informed that there are considerable number of
seniors to him who are working in the category of Temple
Superintendents and Executive Officer, Gr-II and Departmental
Superintendent of Ministerial Service of the Department and
Temple Superintendents are to be considered for
promotion/appointment b transfer of service as Executive
Officer, Gr-I prior to considering his request for appointment
by transfer as Executive Officer, Gr-I. However, his case will be
considered for appointment by transfer as and when his turn
comes as per cycles prescribed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.262
Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 20.05.2002 as per
seniority, eligibility and subject to availability of vacancies.
Hence the petitioner should not have any grievance in this
regard and therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
Reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner while reiterating
the averments made in the petition denied all the allegations
made in the counter filed by the respondents. It is stated that
as stated by the respondents in their counter that as per the
judgment in WP No.10495 of 2019, the action is initiated to
complete the exercise of preparation of seniority list of
Executive Officer-Grade-III, II & I is concerned, the judgment is
no where concerned or relevant to the appointment by transfer
of service of Temple Superintendents to the grade of Executive
Officer-Gr.I and the same is only relating to the seniority list
and promotion of Executive Officer-Gr.II to the post of
Executive Officer-Gr.I. Hence, there is no legal impediment for
preparing the final seniority list of Temple Superintendents
and granting appointment by transfer for service. With regad
to interim orders passed in WP No.1453 of 2022 is relating to
the dispute between the seniority of Executive Officer-Gr.I i.e.,
on Mr. Machiraju Lakshminarayana and M. Satyanarayana
Raju, E.O.-Gr.I relating to the seniority in the cadre of
Executive Officer-Gr.II and the same is not concerned with the
cycle, roster and appointment by transfer of service of the
Temple Superintendents to the Executive Officer Gr.I as their
quota is different and petitioner Superintendent quota is
different. With regard to the seniors to the petitioners in the
category of Temple Superintendents, Executive Officer, Gr.II
and Departmental Superintendents is concerned, the
appointment to the post of Executive Officers in every cycle of
20 vacancies, the cycle of the Superintendents is mentioned in
Category-III and the same is different and the appointment by
transfer is granted to the Superintendents in the 5th, 10th, 15th
and 18th vacancy.
5. Heard Mr. D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for
Endowments appearing for the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
because of the action of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner
being in the first person in the eligible provisional seniority list
of Temple Superintendents for being appointed as Executive
Officer-Gr.I by appointment by transfer of service is losing his
seniority and put to sufferings because of unnecessary delay
caused by the 2nd respondent in filling vacant posts. He
further argued that unless this Court directed the 2nd
respondent to forthwith take action for filling up of the 20
vacant Executive Officer- Gr.I posts, the petitioner will be put
to irreparable loss and injury and out of the above 20 posts,
there are 4 posts earmarked for appointment by transfer of
service as Executive Officer Gr.I from the post of Temple
Superintendents, in which category the petitioner falls. There
is no hindrance or legal impediment for filling up the vacant
posts earmarked for the temple Superintendents. He further
argued that unless the vacant posts are filled up and the
petitioner is granted promotion by appointment by transfer of
service to Executive Officer-Gr.I from the cadre of
Superintendent in the vacant posts from the date of vacancy,
the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and the same
cannot be compensated by any means.
7. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader while
reiterating averments made in the counter contended that the
petitioner's case will be considered for appointment b transfer
of service as Executive Officer, Grade-I as and when his turn
comes as per the cycles prescribed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.262
Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 20.05.2002 as per
seniority, eligibility and subject to availability of vacancies. He
also submitted that none of the juniors of the petitioner were
promoted/ appointed by transfer as Executive Officers, Gr.I
prior to considering his request.
8. On hearing, this Court observed that there is no
overlapping of one quota into another quota, the promotion to
the Executive Officer-Gr.II will be given to their quota only and
if any unfilled vacancies are there, the same will be carried
forward and filled by the Executive Officers- Gr.II only.
Similarly, the temple Superintendents quota, seniority will be
separate and the same will be filled by the Superintendents
quota only and if any unfilled vacancies are there, the same
will be carried forward and filled by the Superintendents only.
This Court further observed that there is no legal impediment
for preparation of final seniority list of Temple Superintendents
for being appointed by transfer of service as Executive Officer
Gr.I and finalizing the same and for granting appointment by
transfers also. But the same is not being done only for the
vested interests of the respondent authorities.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, in view of the submissions made by both the learned
counsels and upon perusing the entire material available on
record, this Court is of the considered view that while declaring
the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing impugned Memo
dated 18.6.2021 and escaping from the legality of filling up the
Grade-I Executive Officer posts as per G.O.Ms.No.262 dated
20.5.2002, as illegal and arbitrary and the same are liable to
be set aside.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside
the impugned Memo in Rc.No.E2/15022/19/2019, dated
18.06.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent. Further, the 2nd
respondent is directed to complete the exercise of filing up of
the vacant posts in the cadre of Executive Officer Gr.I fixing the
seniority of the petitioner from the date of vacancy, within a
period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
______________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 22-08-2022
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.7740 of 2022
Date : 22.08.2022
Gvl
