Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Engineerinchief, Another vs M.V.R. Satyanarayana Rao Another on 5 August, 2024
1
(RNT,J & VN,J
W.P.No.16547 of 2011)
APHC010074532011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3470]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 16547/2011
Between:
The Engineer-in-chief,
chief, & Another and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
M V R Satyanarayana Rao Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES II
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P V S S S RAMA RAO
2. J SUDHEER
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)
Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II
Services for the
petitioners as well as Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
(RNT,J & VN,J
W.P.No.16547 of 2011)
2. The 1st respondent filed O.A.No.917 of 2006 on the file of the
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short 'Tribunal').
3. The case of the applicant/respondent No.1 was that the 1st
respondent is a physically handicapped person having 80% disability to the
lower limb. He completed his Diploma in Civil Engineering in 2 nd division, and
pursuant to Notification No.8 of 1995 issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public
Service Commission (hereinafter referred as 'APPSC'), he applied for the post
of Assistant Engineer in Panchayat Raj Engineering Subordinate Service
under physically handicapped quota. Previously, he filed O.A.No.7184 of 1997
against the APA Tribunal order, dated 16.12.2003, seeing appointment as
Assistant Engineer under physically handicapped quota, but the same was
dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, he filed W.P.No.11678 of 2004, which
was disposed of, on 25.04.2005, by setting aside the order of the Tribunal with
a direction to the authorities to appoint the petitioner/applicant as Assistant
Engineer either in the existing or in the next available vacancy reserved for
physically handicapped candidates. The operative portion in Paragraph
Nos.11 & 12 is as under :
"11. There is no dispute about the directions issued by
the Government of India on this aspect and on this basis the
petitioner is entitled for the appointment on the basis of the
Office Memorandum, dated 8.12.1980. But since the
recruitment had already been completed, no useful purpose
will be served by setting aside the appointment of another
(RNT,J & VN,J
W.P.No.16547 of 2011)
candidate and directing the Government to give appointment
to the petitioner. Yet at the same time, the petitioner could be
adjusted either in the existing vacancies or in the next
available vacancy reserved for physically handicapped
candidate in Junior Engineer cadre, which is redesignated as
Assistant Engineer.
12. Under those circumstances while setting aside the
order of the Tribunal, we dispose of the Writ Petition with a
direction that the authorities shall appoint the petitioner as
Assistant Engineer either in the existing vacancy or
immediately available future vacancies reserved for physically
handicapped candidates. No costs.".
4. After prolonged litigation by APPSC, the matter had been taken to
the Hon'ble Apex Court, and finally, the applicant/respondent No.1 was
appointed as Assistant Engineer under physically handicapped quota, vide
G.O.Rt.No.934, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Estt.II) Department,
dated 05.07.2006, but the said order was kept in abeyance, in view of the stay
order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, on the judgment of the High Court.
Finally, the Apex Court dismissed the SLP. The Government issued
G.O.Ms.No.193, dated 26.06.2009, giving effect to the appointment orders
issued in G.O.Rt.No.934, dated 934, dated 05.07.2006, and the applicant was
allotted to Panchayati Raj Circle, Kakinada, vide proceedings
No.SO.II(1)/74504/09, dated 1.07.2009, where he joined in the month of
September,2009.
(RNT,J & VN,J
W.P.No.16547 of 2011)
5. The O.A.No.917 of 2006 was filed for payment of salary and other
benefits from the date on which recruitment had taken place pursuant to
Notification No.8 of 1995. However, during the course of arguments before
APAT, the prayer was confined to seniority along with the candidates who had
been appointed pursuant to same notification.
6. The O.A.No.917 of 2006 was allowed with a direction to the
respondents to fix the seniority of the applicant as a last selected candidate,
pursuant to the Notification No.8 of 1995, and to give consequential promotion
if any junior to the applicant had already been given. The Tribunal also
directed the petitioner herein to complete the entire exercise within a period of
eight weeks.
7. In this Writ Petition, on 16.06.2011, interim suspension of the
operation of the order in O.A.No.917 of 2006, dated 16.12.2003, was granted.
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners
submits that the direction for promotion could not be given by the Tribunal,
inasmuch as any junior to the applicant i.e., respondent No.1 herein pursuant
to Notification No.8 of 1995, was not promoted. He has referred to Paragraph
No.14 of the Writ Petition affidavit, which is as follows :-
"14. It is submitted no junior to the 1st respondent herein
appointed in pursuant to Notification No.8 of 1995, was
promoted."
(RNT,J & VN,J
W.P.No.16547 of 2011)
9. We find no force in the aforesaid submission of the learned
Assistant Government Pleader.
10. The Tribunal has provided to give consequential promotion, if any
junior to the applicant had already been given the promotion. The direction is
conditional. If it is the case of the petitioner herein as per para No.14 of the
Writ Petition affidavit, and if correct, there should be no grievance to the
petitioner from the direction of the Tribunal as aforesaid.
11. So far as direction to fix the seniority of the applicant/respondent
No.1 is concerned, the Tribunal has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Pilla Sitaram Patrudu & Others V. Union of India 1. There is
no argument on the aforesaid aspect by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
12. We do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is
dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
5th August, 2024.
RPD.
(1996) 8 SCC 637
(RNT,J & VN,J
W.P.No.16547 of 2011)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 16547 of 2011
Date : 05.08.2024
RPD
