Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M Vidya Sagar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 January, 2023
1
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION (A.T) No.748 of 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief:
".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction, to call for the records
relating to Memo No. SO.I(I)/DEE-IV/RWS and S/12335/2016,
dated 29.12.2016 and consequential proceedings No. S.O.I
(IV)/DEE-IV/RWS and S/12335/2015, dated 03.03.2017 reverting
the petitioner issued by the 3rd respondent and set aside the same
as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable and contrary to
principles of natural justice and consequently direct the
respondents to place the petitioner above Sl.No.49 and continuing
him as Deputy Executive and pass such other orders."
2. Heard Mr. M. Ratna Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Government Pleader, Services-II for the
respondents.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while
working in Panchayat Raj Department in Zone-IV, vide
G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 03.01.2011 was appointed by transfer to the
post of Assistant Executive Engineer, Zone-IV in Rural Water
Supply and Sanitation Department in terms of Rule 3 of A.P. Rural
Water Supply Engineering Services-2008 giving last rank in the
seniority list of regular Assistant Executive Engineer, Zone-IV
subject to the eligibility and that the petitioner shall forego his lien
in Panchayat Raj Department, since there is no provision for
departmental transfer therein. The petitioner passed Accounts Test
for PWD Officers and Subordinates vide letter dated 15.03.1999
and his services was regularized in the care of AEEs vide
proceedings dated 16.05.2009, wherein the name of the petitioner
is shown in commencing his probation from 24.11.2014. While the
matter stood thus, the respondents without following the rules, the
seniority list prepared four years back is now sought to be
reviewed in the name of tentative provisional seniority list affecting
the petitioner's seniority and placed him at Sl.No.74 below his
juniors, who were not even eligible to be promoted as on
13.09.2013, the date on which the petitioner is promoted. The
petitioner submitted objections, but without considering the same,
the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 03.03.2017, wherein
the name of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.48 along with others.
Based on the said tentative seniority list, Ad-hoc promotion was
given to the individual from Assistant Executive Engineer to
Deputy Executive Engineer. The 2nd respondent issued show-cause
notice dated 29.12.2016 showing as to why the services of DEE
has not been reverted from the cadre. The petitioner made
representation to the 2nd respondent requesting him not to revert
to the post of AEE from the cadre of DEE, but without considering
his request the 2nd respondent issued proceedings to revert the
petitioner to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer from Deputy
Executive Engineer, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the writ
petition came to be filed.
4. Per contra, the respondents filed counter-affidavit denying
all material averments made in the affidavit and mainly contended
that as per tentative provisional seniority list dated 14.09.2011 the
name of the petitioner shown at Sl.No.48. Basing on the said list
the petitioner got promotion as Deputy Executive Engineer purely
on adhoc basis as per his seniority, subject to outcome of any
judgments pending against the above seniority and liable for
reversion at any time without any notice to the individual. It is
further contended that another revised tentative seniority list was
prepared by duly incorporating the Assistant Executive Engineers,
who were appointed during the year 2010-2011, duly following the
A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 under Rule 33(b).
Accordingly the name of the petitioner was shown after the public
service commission candidates appointed during the year 2010
and their date of probation was commenced with effect from
07.01.2011 and whereas the petitioner's date of probation is
13.01.2011, which is behind the 2010 APPSC Batch. As such the
name of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.74. Basing on the above
provisions, the 1st respondent issued reversion orders to the post
of Assistant Executive Engineer from Deputy Executive Engineer
to the individual in accordance with rules. Hence the writ petition
is liable to be dismissed.
5. As could be seen from the tentative Seniority list dated
01.02.2016 the name of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.74, who
appointed by transfer from P.R.Department as per G.O.Ms.No.14,
dated 13.01.2011 with a condition to assigning rank below the last
regular AEE of Zone-IV. Further the 3rd respondent issued
proceedings dated 03.03.2017 to revert the petitioner from Deputy
Executive Engineer to Assistant Executive Engineer on the ground
that the seniors to the petitioner are yet to be promoted to the post
of Deputy Executive Engineer without considering the objections of
the petitioner. However, as could be seen from the proceedings of
the 2nd respondent dated 30.09.2013 duly informed that his
promotion/ appointment by transfer as Deputy Executive Engineer
(RWS &S) is purely on Adhoc basis and subject to the following
conditions viz.,
a) This Adhoc Promotion is subject to revision of Seniority at
a later date as per Rule 16(h) of A.P.State & Sub-Ordinate
Service Rules, 1996 or as decided by the Government from
time to time.
b) This Adhoc Promotion is subject to review on account of
preparation of Year-wise Panels.
Further, the said Adhoc promotion is reversion at any time
without notice and without assigning any reasons. Therefore it is
purely a temporary measure, it does not confer any right
whatsoever for claiming regular promotion as Deputy Executive
Engineer, (RWS & S).
6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner points that
the respondents placed the name of the petitioner in different
serial numbers named as tentative seniority list and revised
seniority list which is disputed as it was prepared for their
convenience sake. Basing on the said seniority list, the juniors of
the petitioner got promotions, which is illegal and arbitrary.
Therefore inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ
petition.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
upon perusal of the material on record and considering the
submissions of the both the counsel, this Court inclined to dispose
of the writ petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider
the objections raised by the petitioner against the show-cause
notice issued by the respondents and fix the exact seniority of the
petitioner and if he is eligible, consider the case of the petitioner
for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer or else
pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law, within a
period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
also stand closed.
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Date: 05.01.2023.
KK
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION (AT) No.748 of 2021
Date: 05.01.2023.
KK
