Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S.Ravi Kumar, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 September, 2024
1
*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION No.21601 of 2022
Between:
# S. Ravi Kumar, S/o. S. Nageswara Rao
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Proh. & Excise Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravati and another.
.... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 06.09.2024
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
- Yes -
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals
- Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair
copy of the Judgment?
- Yes -
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
2
* THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
+WRIT PETITION No.21601 of 2022
% 06.09.2024
Between:
# S. Ravi Kumar, S/o. S. Nageswara Rao
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Proh. & Excise Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravati and another.
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Kalyan C.R
Counsel for Respondents: G.P for Services-I
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. CIVIL Appeal Nos.9856, 9860 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C )Nos.6906-6910 of 2009)
3
APHC010356252022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 21601/2022
Between:
S.ravi Kumar, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KALYAN C R
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
the following relief:
"....to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus
or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the proceedings issued vide Memo
No 30021/ 133/Ex I1/2018 Dated 08.04.2021 by rejecting the request to relax Rule 16(h) of
AP State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 and not restoring the seniority based on the
merit and ranking assigned by Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission on par with the
other peers issued vide G.O.Ms.No.241, 242, 243, Dated 13.03.2019, as highly illegal,
arbitrary and in utter violation of Art 14 and 21 of the constitution of India besides contrary to
the Supreme Court judgment rendered in (2016) 6 ALT 47 and consequently set aside the
same and direct the respondents to relax Rule 16(h) of Andhra Pradesh State and
Subordinate Service Rules 1996 by following Supreme Court judgment rendered in (2016)6
ALT 47 and on par with the other peers issued vide G.O.Ms.No.241, 242, 243 dated
13.03.2019 and pas...."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was selected as Excise
Inspector in the year 1996 through APPSC and was appointed as
Prohibition and Excise Inspector and allotted to Zone-III and he joined in
the said post on 02-11-1996. Subsequently, he was as promoted as
Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent in the year 2014 and
Excise Superintendent in the year 2021 and that since the date of his
joining he was worked with utmost satisfaction without any remarks from
any corner whatsoever. It is further stated that the petitioner has
appeared for Subordinate Officers Test part-I and passed in all the
examinations except in accounts during his probation period. The main
grievance of the petitioner is that he passed Accounts test on 02-06-
2002 and in this regard, the respondents, invoking Rule 16(h) of Rules,
1996, extended his probation and fixed the revised date of
commencement of probation from 01.06.2000 instead of 02.11.1996. In
furtherance of the same, the 1strespondent issued G.O.R.T.No.1416,
Dated 30.07.2003 treating his probation period from 01.06.2000 to
02.06.2002 instead of 02.11.1996 to 02.06.2002. Thus, by virtue of the
extension of his probation and revised date of commencement of his
probation, the petitioner was denied 4 years of regular service and as a
result his promotional avenues were effected and the juniors who
secured lesser marks were placed above the petitioner in the provisional
seniority list. Therefore, the petitioner made several representations to
the respondents requesting to relax Rule 16(h) of Rules, 1996 and
consider his 4 years as regular service and restore the seniority based
on merit and ranking fixed by the APPSC. But the respondents have
not consider his case and hence the petitioner approached the A.P.
Administrative Tribunal by way of filing O.A No. 1411 of 2018 seeking a
direction to consider my representation for relaxing Rule 16(h) of Rules,
1996 and restore the seniority based on the merit and ranking assigned
by APPSC by duly considering 4 years of his regular service. The same
was dismissed by the Hon'ble Tribunal without giving any reasons vide
its order Dt:19-07-2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred
WP No. 28389 of 2018 before this Hon'ble Court and the same was
disposed of by this Hon'ble Court with a direction to the respondents to
dispose of his representation Dt:04-07-2018 within 4 weeks, in terms of
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2016 (6) ALT 47.
But the 1st respondent without considering his representation rejected
the same, which is in utter deviation from the settled law by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Heard Sri Kalyan C.R., learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I
appearing for the respondents.
4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the
averments made in the petition, submits that, the respondents herein
considered the request of various individuals who are similarly placed
and relaxed Rule 16(h) of Rules 1996 and restored the seniority based
on merit and ranking fixed by the APPSC. In this regard, requests of
one V. Chandrasekhar Reddy, M. Sudheer Babu, M. Radha Krishna
amongst many others were considered and passed G.O.Ms.No.241,
242, 243, dated 13.03.2019 respectively relaxing Rule 16(h) of Rules
1996 and restored their respective seniority based on merit and ranking
fixed by the APPSC. But, while considering the request of the petitioner,
the respondents have rejected the same in callous and capricious
manner without assigning any reasons and without application of mind
which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel requests
this Court to pass appropriate orders.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents has opposed for allowing the petition and prayed to
dismiss the same.
6. Perused the material on record.
7. As seen from the impugned Memo vide Memo
No.30021/133/Ex.I(1)/2018, dated 08.04.2021, wherein it was
mentioned that "keeping in view the orders passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of A.P. in WPNo.28389 of 2018, dated 10.08.2018 has been
examined in consultation with the advisory departments and decided
that it is not feasible to consider his request, since there is no specific
provision on the A.P. Excise Service Rules, 1961 for extending the
probation of the probationer till the individual passes the tests the
provision in the A.P. State &Subordinate Service Rules 1996 will be
applicable and the date of commencement of the probation of Sri S.Ravi
Kumar was correctly changed, vide orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.1416
Revenue (Ex.1) Department, dated 30.07.2003 and there is no need to
review these orders...."
8. As seen from the material, it is observed that, admittedly the
petitioner was selected as Excise Inspector in the year 1996 through
APPSC and was appointed as Probation and Excise Inspector. Though
the petitioner passed Subordinate Officers Test Paper-I and all, the
respondents, invoking Rule 16(h) of Rules 1996 extended his probation
and fixed the revised date of commencement of probation from
01.6.2000 instead of 2.11.1996. In furtherance of the same, the 1st
respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.1416 dated 30.07.2003 treating the
petitioner's probation period from 1.6.2000 to 2.6.2002 instead of
2.11.1996 to 2.6.2002. Thus by virtue of the same the petitioner denied
4 years of service. It is the contention of the petitioner's counsel that
several individuals who are similarly placed have approached the
respondent's seeking relaxation under Rule 16(h) of Rules, 1996 and
the same were considered by the respondents. But the respondents did
not choose to consider the request of the petitioner for the reasons best
known to them. Further, even though the petitioner made
representations to consider his request, the 1strespondent without
considering his representation in right perspective and without giving
any reasons, rejected the representation of the petitioner which is in
utter deviation from the settled law.
9. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the request of various individuals who are similarly placed and
relaxed Rule 16(h) of Rules 1996 and restored the seniority based on
merit and ranking fixed by the APPSC and in this regard the requests of
one V Chandrasekhar Reddy, M Sudheer Babu and M. Radha Krishna
amongst many others were considered and passed GOs. The said
G.Os were also placed on record.
10. On a perusal of the above G.Os., the above persons were
submitted representations for relaxation of Rule 16(h) of A.P. State
subordinate Service Rules and the same were considered by the
Government ordered to relax Rule 16(h) of the Rules on par with
similarly situated persons and to treat the seniority of the applicants as
per the ranking assigned y the APPSC in their respective cadres.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in R
VenkataRamudu and another etc. versus State of A.P., and others 1,
wherein the Apex Court observed with regard to Rule 16 and held that
Rule 16 of the GENERAL RULES deals with various aspects of the
probation of direct recruits, such as the commencement of probation
(16(a), period of probation (16(c )), passing of tests or acquiring
CIVIL Appeal Nos.9856, 9860 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C )Nos.6906-6910 of 2009)
qualification prescribed either in the GENERAL or SPECIAL RULES
(16(E )).
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the above Rule, held
the Rule stipules that such a declaration is to be made at the end of the
period of probation or the extended period of probation.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that the Rule 16(h) :
Rule 16(h) contains a stipulation which is in the nature of an exception to the stipulation
contained in Rule 16(a) 10. While 16(a) declares that a direct recruit shall commence his
probation "from the date of his joining the duty or from such other date as may be 9 See F/N
8.
10 Rule 16(a) - Commencement of probation for direct recruits - A person appointed in
accordance with the rules, otherwise than under Rule 10, by direct recruitment shall
commence his probation from the date of his joining the duty or from such other date as may
be specified by the appointing authority :
Provided that a person having been appointed temporarily under Rule 10 to a post in any
service, class or category or having been so appointed otherwise than in accordance with the
rules governing appointment to such post, subsequently appointed to the same post, in the
same service or class or category, in the same unit of appointment, in accordance with the
rules, shall commence his probation from the date of such subsequent appointment or from
such earlier date as the appointing authority may determine, subject to the condition that his
commencement of probation from an earlier date shall not adversely affect any person who
has been appointed earlier or simultaneously, to the same service, class or category in the
same unit specified by the appointing authority", Rule 16(h) 11 stipulates that a probationer
who does not pass the prescribed test " shall be deemed to have commenced the probation
with effect from the date to be fixed by the Government". It creates a fiction by which the date
of commencement of probation is altered from the actual date of commencement.
The Hon'ble Apex Court while relying upon the above rules held that:
In the context of the service such as the one to which R. VenkataRamudu belongs, what is
more relevant is the technical qualification of the employee and the experience gained in
utilizing such technical qualification for the service of the State than the knowledge of
Accounts, a subject which is of incidental significance.
Because knowledge of accounts is relevant only for the discharge of administrative
responsibilities to be shouldered by the engineers.
14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in
view of the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
R.VenkataRamudu's case (supra), this Court deems fit to dispose of
the writ petition while declaring the proceedings dated 08.04.2021
issued by the 1st respondent as illegal.
15. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings vide Memo
No.30021/133/Ex.I(1)/2018, dated 08.04.2021 issued by the 1st
respondent is hereby set aside. Further the respondents are directed to
consider the case of the petitioner to relax Rule 16(h) of A.P.State and
Subordinate Service Rule 1996 by following the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in R. VenkataRamudu's case (supra) within a
period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
16. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand
closed.
______________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 06 -09-2024
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.21601 of 2022
Date : 06.09.2024
Gvl
