Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K. Pushpalatha, W/O C.S. Raja vs The Tirumala Tirupati ... on 16 March, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.9064 of 2013
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the revised seniority list of Staff Nurses,
published by the 1st respondent, vide proceedings in
Roc.No.TL2/7489/2006, dated 16.05.2007 and consequential
promotion orders of respondents 2 to 4 issued vide proceedings
Roc.No.TL2/3292/2008, dated 04.02.2013, the petitioners filed the
present writ petition.
2. Heard Sri V.Jagapathi, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri A.Sumanth, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st
respondent and Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy and P.Venkata Rama
Sarma, learned counsels for unofficial respondents.
3. Facts in nutshell :
Petitioners including 26 candidates and the private
respondents were appointed to the cadre of Staff Nurse vide
proceedings in Roc.No.TL2/68645/85, dated 12.10.1989 in the
existing vacancies in the 1st respondent's temple i.e., Tirumala
Tirupathi Devasthanam (for short 'TTD'), in pursuance to the
selection conducted in the year 1989, by duly constituted selection
committee. It is further stated that at the time of issuing the said
proceedings, the 1st respondent has not followed the merit list
prepared on the basis of marks awarded to the candidates and
does not reflect the preference either in the order of merit or the
Rule of reservation. The 1st respondent has arranged the seniority
of all the 26 candidates, vide Memo Roc.No.TL2/8336/95, dated
24.02.1995 and called for objections. According to the said
seniority list, petitioners 1 to 5 were shown at Sl.No.43, 44, 54, 56
& 57 respectively and unofficial respondents 2 to 5 were shown
below the petitioners 1 & 2. It is further stated that the 1 st
respondent, vide proceedings in Roc.No.C1/17675/C.Cell/95,
dated 14.12.1995 confirmed the services of the Staff Nurses
including the petitioners and private respondents showing the
dates of their regularization in the service.
(ii) While so, the 1st respondent has prepared and
communicated another seniority list of Staff Nurses, vide Circular
in Roc.No.TL2/7489/2006, dated 20.4.2006 calling for objections,
if any, within the stipulated period i.e., 20.05.2006. In the said
seniority list of the Staff Nurses also, the 1st respondent has
arranged the ranks of the petitioners and the respondents, in
accordance with the earlier seniority list of Staff Nurses
communicated vide Memo, dated 24.02.1995 and 14.12.1995
respectively. Respondents 2 to 4 seems to have submitted their
representation to the 1st respondent requesting to arrange their
seniority in accordance with the proceeding dated 12.10.1989. At
this stage, it is stated that the proceedings, dated 12.10.1989 has
no basis at all and the same has lost its validity after preparation
of subsequent seniority list of all the Staff Nurses, dated
24.02.1995 and 14.12.1995. Considering the objections raised by
respondents 2 to 4 and others, the 1st respondent has revised the
ranks of the Staff Nurses of 1989 batch only, disturbing the
seniority given to the petitioners and unofficial respondents.
Thereafter, the revised seniority list, which is impugned in the
present writ petition, has been issued. The reason indicated in the
said proceedings is that the appointment is issued on the basis of
Rule of Reservation and therefore, the objections raised by
respondents 2 to 4 and others were considered and seniority is
revised. On the basis of the said averments, the learned counsel
for the petitioners sought to set aside the impugned seniority list.
4. The 1st respondent filed counter stating that the
selection committee has only given the list of selected candidates
by category wise and accordingly, appointment orders were given
by following the Roster points as well as the Rule of Reservation
without disturbing the order of list of selected candidates, which
was given in category-wise. In the proceedings, dated 24.02.1995,
only a provisional seniority list which was not matching the order
of preference as given in the appointment order was prepared and
the said provisional seniority list was not confirmed and the
contentions of petitioners that the said provisional seniority list has
attained finality is incorrect.
(ii) It is also contended on behalf of the 1 st respondent
that the proceedings, dated 14.12.1995 is only with regard to
confirmation of service, but not related to the confirmation of
seniority among the Nurses and it is clearly stated that the
confirmation does not confer any right of seniority in the cadre. As
such, the confirmation was subjected to finalization of seniority in
the cadres.
(iii) It is also submitted by the learned Standing Counsel
that the petitioners were under presumption that memo, dated
14.12.1995 is the confirmed seniority list and as such, the
contention of the petitioners that the seniority list attained finality
by memo, dated 14.12.1995 is incorrect. It is submitted by him,
that the order 14.12.1995 only reflects the confirmation of services
of Staff Nurses in their entry grade into the 1st respondent.
(iv) It is further submitted by learned standing counsel
that till 2006, the seniority among the Staff Nurses has not been
confirmed and with only provisional seniority the promotions were
being effected. It is only to confirm the seniority list and in order
to prepare a tentative seniority list, the 1st respondent has issued a
circular, dated 20.04.2006, duly calling for objections if any. In
response to the said Circular, certain Staff Nurses filed their
objections. The 1st respondent examined the entire list along with
objections, verified the appointments files and roster register, who
were appointed in the year 1989 and found that their objections
deserve consideration and accordingly, the seniority list was
revised by way of impugned proceedings, dated 16.05.2007. While
revising seniority list, none of the petitioners have raised any
objections with regard to their seniority even after communication
of confirmed seniority list.
(v) It is further submitted by the learned standing counsel
as well as other counsels appearing on behalf of unofficial
respondents that as per Circular No.57759/Ser.A/2004-I, dated
20.05.2004, no requests for revision of seniority for a period which
is more than three years, shall be considered. As such, the
grievance of the petitioners is misconceived and the present writ
petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
5. This court has perused the entire material on record.
It is specifically stated by the learned standing counsel for the 1 st
respondent that the proceedings dated 14.12.1995 is only with
regard to the confirmation of service only, but not related to the
confirmation of seniority among the Staff Nurses and it was
mentioned that confirmation does not confer any right of seniority
in the cadre and as such, it is subjected to finalization of seniority
list in the cadre. It was done on 20.04.2006 duly calling for
objections. Admittedly, the petitioners did not raise their
objections to the communication, vide Circular dated 20.04.2006
as such, the 1st respondent has prepared the impugned seniority
list, dated 16.05.2007.
6. Further, as seen from the record, in view of the
Circular No.57759/Ser.A/2004-I, dated 20.05.2004 and also the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in B.S.Bajwa &
Another vs State Of Punjab & Others1 the contention of the writ
petitioners is liable to be rejected. Admittedly, petitioners did not
raise any objections from 2006 onwards and they came with the
present objection after more than five years. Hence, in view of
the Circular stated Supra and also considering the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex court, this Court feels that there are no merits in the
writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. In that view of matter, the writ petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
____________________
SRI K.SURESH REDDY,J
16th March,2022.
RPD
1998 (2) SCC 523
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
Writ Petition No. 9064 of 2013
Dated: 16.03.2022
RPD
