Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Anem Veera Raju vs The High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, on 4 October, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010186742023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 9620/2023
Between:
Anem Veera Raju and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The High Court Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P S P SURESH KUMAR
2. KALYAN C R
Dt: 04.10.2024
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Heard Sri M. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri P.S.P Suresh Kumar and C.R. Kalyan, learned counsel for
respondents.
2. The 1st petitioner was appointed as an attender in the year
1988 and 2nd petitioner was appointed as attender in the year 2001. In the
course of their service, they were promoted from time to time. The details
of these would not be necessary for the purposes of this writ petition. It
would suffice to start with the promotion of the petitioners as
Stenographer Grade-III by the 2nd respondent-District Judge, by
proceedings in PR.No.5 of 2017 dated 03.02.2017. After a period of two
years, the petitioners were further promoted as Stenographer Grade-II, by
proceedings in PR.No.32 of 2019 dated 18.05.2019 by the 2 nd
respondent. Subsequently, proceedings bearing PR.No.28 and 29, dated
13.02.2020 were issued regularizing the services of the 1st petitioner as
Stenographer Grade-II and his probation was also declared under Rule
13 of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial and Subordinate Service
Rules, 2019. At that stage, the 2nd respondent again issued proceedings
dated 21.03.2020 reverting both the petitioners to the post of
Stenographer Grade-III. Aggrieved by the said order of reversion, the
petitioners approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.8436 of 2020, which
came to be allowed, on 13.08.2020, on the ground of violation of
principles of natural justice, and the matter was remanded back to the 2nd
respondent.
3. It is contended that the petitioners came to know, during the
pendency of the above writ petition, on account of the papers served on
them, that they had been reverted on the representation of the 3rd
respondent to the 1st respondent who had directed the 2nd respondent by
order, dated 14.03.2020, to revert the petitioners. Upon coming to know
these facts, the petitioners moved W.P.No.19674 of 2020 questioning the
proceedings, dated 14.03.2020, of the 1st respondent. This Court set
aside the said proceedings, dated 14.03.2020, by an order dated
13.08.2020.
4. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners moved the 2nd
respondent, by way of a representation, dated 21.08.2020, for restoring
them as Stenographer Grade-II. The 2nd respondent issued a notice,
dated 28.09.2020, to the petitioners, to show cause why they should not
be reverted from the category of Stenographer Grade-II to the
Stenographer Grade-III. After receiving the reply of the petitioners, the 2 nd
respondent again issued a notice dated 01.11.2021 granting personal
hearing to the petitioners on 06.11.2021. In a parallel proceeding, the 2nd
respondent issued a gradation list of Grade-II and Grade-III
Stenographers on 30.12.2021 in which the names of the petitioners were
not included in the list of Stenographers Grade-II while the name of the
3rd respondent was included.
5. As their request for being promoted to Grade-II was not being
considered, further representations were made by the petitioners for
restoration of their seniority. As no orders were being passed, the
petitioners again filed W.P.No.7271 of 2022 questioning the inaction of
the 2nd respondent, in restoring the petitioners, as Stenographers Grade-
II. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court, on 10.08.2022, with a
direction to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders within six
weeks. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent issued a fresh notice dated
06.10.2022, and after considering the response of the petitioners and
detailed brief submitted on 14.10.2022, had issued proceedings dated
21.10.2022 holding that the earlier proceedings dated 21.03.2022 issued
by the 2nd respondent reverting the petitioners to the post of
Stenographer Grade-III holds good.
6. The petitioners being aggrieved by these proceedings, as well
as the issuance of the gradation list, approached this Court, by way of the
present writ petition, for setting aside to orders of the 2nd respondent
dated 21.10.2022 and for a consequential declaration that the petitioners
are entitled to be restored as Stenographer Grade-II with monetary
benefits with effect from 18.05.2019.
7. Upon notice, the respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter
affidavit and 3rd respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit.
8 Sri M. Vijay Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel for Sri Manoj
Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
the petitioners had been promoted to the post of Stenographer Grade-III
on 03.02.2017 and their probation, upon completion, was declared on
with effect from 08.12.2018 while the 3rd to 7th respondents had joined as
direct recruits, as Stenographer Grade-III on 22.06.2016 and completed
their probation with effect from 22.06.2018 and consequently the
petitioners should be treated as seniors to the 3rd to 7th respondents as
they had completed their probation in the year 2018, after the petitioners
had completed their probation.
9. The learned senior counsel would draw the attention of this
Court to the Rule which stipulates that the period of probation for a
promotee is a continuous period of service of one year within a maximum
of two years while the period of probation for a direct recruit is two years
of continuous service within a period of three years. This would mean that
the petitioners would be senior to the respondents 3 to 7, whether the
actual period of probation is taken into account or the outer limit within
which the probation is required to be completed is taken into account. He
would submit that in such circumstances, the action of the 2nd respondent
in issuing a gradation list showing the petitioners to be junior to the
respondents 3 to 7 and reverting the petitioners to Stenographer Grade-III
is also impermissible.
10. Sri P.S.P. Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2
and Sri C.R. Kalyan appearing for 3rd respondent would submit that the
said contentions are not tenable.
11. The facts, according to Sri P.S.P. Kumar, as contained in the
counter affidavit, filed by respondents 1 and 2 are that the petitioners had
been permitted on a temporary basis, in accordance with Rule 27 of the
Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003. He would also
draw the attention of this Court to Rule 27(1) and 27(4) which read as
follows:
27(1) Temporary Promotions:
I) Where it is necessary in the public interest owing to an
emergency which has arisen to fill immediately a vacancy in
a post borne on the cadre of a higher category of the service
by promotion from a lower category and there would be
undue delay in making such promotion in accordance with
these rules the appointing authority may promote a person
otherwise than in accordance with these rules, temporarily,
until a person is promoted in accordance with these rules.
Such promotion shall not except with the specific permission
of the High Court, exceed a period of six months. The High
Court may grant such permission only for stated reasons and
in very exceptional cases without prejudice to the normal
clams of any other employees.
(4) A person promoted under sub-rule (I) shall not be
regarded as a probationer in the higher category or be
entitled by reason only of such promotion to any preferential
claim to future promotion to such higher category. If such
person is subsequently promoted to the higher category in
accordance with these rules, he shall commence his
probation, if any, in such category from the date of such
subsequent promotion or from such earlier date as the
appointing authority may determine.
12. The learned counsel submit that, the proceedings of the
2nd respondent, dated 03.02.2017, relied upon by the petitioners,
show that the petitioners had been promoted on a temporary basis
and cannot count their period of service from that date. It is further
submitted that the respondents 3 to 7 were issued appointment
letters, as direct recruits, as Stenographers Grade-III on 17.06.2016
and their probation was declared w.e.f 18.06.2018.
13. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar draws the attention of this
Court to Rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Services Rules
2019 which stipulates that the seniority of a person in a category
shall be determined by the date of commencement of his/her service
including the period which counts towards probation. He would
submit that this rule requires seniority of a person to be determined
on the basis of his first appointment to a particular post.
14. As the respondents 3 to 7 were appointed on
17.06.2016 while the petitioners were given temporary promotion as
on 03.02.2017, the respondents 3 to 7 would have to be treated as
senior to the petitioners herein. He also relies upon a Judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar and others vs Sri
Akhouri Sachindra Nath and Others1.
15. Shorn of all details, the seniority of the petitioners vis-à-
vis the respondents 3 to 7 would have to be determined in
accordance with Rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial
Service Rules, 2019. The date of appointment of respondents 3 to 7
is 17.06.2016 in the post of Stenographer Grade-III. The petitioners
were permitted, on a temporary basis, to the post of Stenographer
Grade No.III only on 03.02.2017. Though the probation of the
petitioners were declared even before that of respondents 3 to 7,
AIR 1991 SC 1244
Rule 19 requires the first date of appointment to be taken into
consideration.
16. In such a case, it is the respondents 3 to 7 who would
be senior to the petitioners in the post of Stenographer Grade-III.
Consequently, the reversion of the petitioners to accommodate the
3rd respondent, who is senior to them cannot be faulted. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Bihar and others vs Sri Akhouri
Sachindra Nath and Others held as follows:
"In the instant case, the promotee respondent Nos. 6 to 23 were not
born in the cadre of Assistant Engineer in the Bihar Engineering
Service, Class II at the time when the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were
directly recruited to the post of Assistant Engineer and as such they
cannot be given seniority in the service of Assistant Engineers over
the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. It is well settled that no person can be
promoted with retrospective effect from a date when he was not
born in the cadre so as to adversely affect others. It is well settled
by several decisions of this Court that amongst members of the
same grade seniority is reckoned from the date of their initial entry
into the service. In other words, seniority inter-se amongst the
Assistant Engineers in Bihar Engineering Service, Class II will be
considered from the date of the length of service rendered as
Assistant Engineers. This being the position in law the respondent
Nos. 6 to 23 can not be made senior to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5
by the impugned Government orders as they entered into the said
Service by promotion after the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were directly
recruited in the quota of direct recruits. The judgment of the High
Court quashing the impugned Government orders made in
annexures, 8, 9 and 10 is unexceptionable."
17. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
______________
HARINATH.N, J
RJS
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
&
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. HARINATH
WRIT PETITION.No.9620 of 2023
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Dt: 04.10.2024
RJS
