Telangana High Court

N.Mohan, S/O. Late Chengalrayudu vs The Union Of India on 12 April, 2022

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                               AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                       W.P.Nos.6975, 3261, 3367 and 3550 of 2016

COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


         Learned counsel for the parties were fair enough in

informing this Court that the controversy involved in the present

cases has already been adjudicated on account of an order

dated 19.03.2021, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in

W.P.No.17883 of 2016.


         The Order dated 19.03.2021 reads as under:-

                  "The petitioners in this Writ Petition are employees of
          the Board of Intermediate Education of the composite State
          of Andhra Pradesh.
          2.      They have filed this Writ Petition challenging the action
          of respondents in not finalizing the modalities for distribution

of personnel of the Board of Intermediate Education of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh between the successor entities i.e. 3rd respondent and 4th respondent of the State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana respectively.

3. Admittedly, the composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into new State of Telangana and the residuary ::2::

State of Andhra Pradesh on 02-06-2014 under the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 (for short 'the Act') w.e.f. 02-06-2014.

4. The Board of Intermediate Education of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh was included in Schedule X appended to the said Act as it was a State wide Institution.

5. The State of Telangana issued G.O.Ms.No.25 Higher Education (IE) Department dt.04-12-2014 and constituted the Board of Intermediate Education for the State of Telangana (4th respondent).

6. Thereafter the erstwhile Board of Intermediate Education became the Board of Intermediate Education for the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh (3rd respondent).

7. Petitioners contend that they are all born and educated in Hyderabad and they belong to the State of Telangana, but the 4th respondent issued proceedings on 24-12-2014 drafting only certain employees in the list enclosed along with the said order to the 3rd respondent, pending finalization of modalities and that the petitioners continue to work with the Board of Intermediate Education in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

8. Petitioners contend that they were promoted to the cadre of Superintendents prior to 02-06-2014, that the 4th respondent regularized the services of certain employees in the cadre of Superintendents by issuing proceedings ::3::

dt.15-12-2015 and included several juniors to the petitioners and excluded the names of petitioners.

9. They contend that 4th respondent issued a Memorandum on 01-06-2016 communicating the provisional seniority list of Superintendents inviting objections for their seniority. But in the said seniority list, the 4th respondent did not show all individuals but only certain Superintendents who have completed 3 years of service. They objected to the provisional seniority list contending that the said seniority list should contain all individuals who are working as Superintendents irrespective of their length of service.

10. Petitioners also contend that in the meantime, 3rd respondent is discriminating against the petitioners on the ground that they belong to the State of Telangana, but working in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

11. Petitioners, therefore, pray that a direction be given to respondent Nos.3 and 4 to finalize modalities for final allocation of staff between 3rd respondent and 4th respondent by placing reliance on Section 82 of the Act. They also contended that they gave representations on 30-12-2014, 14-12-2015, 08-12-2015 and 11-12-2015 to the 4th respondent to consider their case for allotment to 4th respondent by virtue of their local status, but 4th respondent had not acted upon it and they were forced to file this Writ Petition.

12. Learned counsel for petitioners reiterated the said contentions.

::4::

13. He also relied on a decision of this Court in B.Sambasiva Rao vs. State of Telangana and others1 wherein this Court had dealt with final allocation of employees of A.P. State Residential Educational Institutions Society between its successors Telangana State Residential Educational Institutions Society (TREIS) and newly constituted A.P. State Residential Educational Institutions Society (APREIS).

14. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 filed counter-affidavit admitting that the Board of Intermediate Education of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh is mentioned in Schedule -X of the Act, but contended that the Government has not issued any modalities or guidelines in Schedule X Institutions. It is admitted that the Secretary of 4th respondent Board had drafted certain staff working at Head Office of undivided Board of Intermediate Education on 24-12-2014 pending finalization of modalities for the bifurcation of staff under Section 82 of the Act. It is contended that petitioners are working under the control of the 3rd respondent and they are not on the roles of the 4th respondent, and the provisional seniority in the cadre of Superintendents is communicated to the eligible Superintendents who have completed 3 years of service as on 31-08-2015. It is stated that the request of employees presently working with the 3rd respondent to take them in the 4th respondent on the ground that they have studied in Hyderabad and in Telangana Districts before filling the

2021(1) ALD 630 (TS) (DB) ::5::

proposed vacancies by promotion from feeder category, cannot be considered by 4th respondent without final allocation of staff between the two States.

15. However, Sri Radhive Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the Office of the learned Advocate General has fairly admitted that the issue in this case is covered by the judgment in B.Sambasiva Rao (1 supra).

16. The 3rd respondent also filed a counter-affidavit stating that the allocation of employees was not made either as per purview of the Presidential Order or the Kamalanathan Committee guidelines while taking the employees for 4th respondent, and that certain employees who actually belong to Telangana State as per Presidential Order such as the petitioners, are continuing to work with the 3rd respondent. It is also stated that several employees who actually belong to the Andhra Pradesh State as per the Presidential Oder are working in the 4th respondent and names of certain employees have been given. It is again admitted that the division of posts in each category of the erstwhile Board of Intermediate Education of composite State of Andhra Pradesh was not done officially by the Secretaries of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and that the modalities for bifurcation of staff under Section 82 of the Act have not been finalized between respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is stated that only some of the employees were provided to work in the 4th respondent and rest are working in the 3rd respondent.

::6::

The consideration by the Court

17. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the Board of Intermediate Education of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh is mentioned in Schedule X to the Act at Sl.No.90.

18. In B.Sambasiva Rao (1 supra), this Court had considered the issue of allocation of employees of erstwhile A.P. State Residential Educational Institutions Society between Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Society (TREIS) and new AP Residential Educational Institutions Society (APREIS) constituted after 02-06-2014. This Court had held that the organizations like APREIS covered by Schedule-X to the Act, would be covered by Section 82 of the Act; that the said provision specifically deals with employees of Public Sector Undertakings and it stipulates that on and from the appointed date i.e., 02.06.2014, the employees of State Public Sector Undertakings, Corporations and other Autonomous Bodies shall continue to function in such Undertakings, Corporations or Autonomous Bodies for a period of one year, and during this period, the Corporate Body concerned shall determine the modalities for distributing the personnel between the two successor States. It was also held that Section 82 of the Act brings within its ambit the employees of autonomous bodies like the APREIS; and the successor States Telangana and Andhra Pradesh are not required to dissolve these autonomous bodies; and the word 'between two successor States' used in Section 82 of the Act can only refer to the autonomous bodies of two successor States.

::7::

It also held that the modalities for distributing the personnel between the two successor States can only mean the modalities for distributing the personnel between the two successor State Public Sector Undertakings, Corporations and Autonomous Bodies only and not distribution of such personnel between the respective State Governments, as that would make employees of such Corporations / Undertakings / Companies etc., employees of the Governments of the two successor States It also held that Section 82 of the Act requires the Corporate Bodies themselves to determine the modalities for distributing its personnel between the two successor States; and that each of the Corporate Bodies independently and on its own accord should prescribe modalities for distribution of its employees between the two successor States.

It also clarified that limitation of one year prescribed in Section 82 for determining the modalities of distribution of personnel is not mandatory, that such prescription of time is only directory, and the mere fact that the one year period has elapsed, does not prohibit any of the Public Sector Undertakings from determining modalities for, or for the actual allocation of its employees between the two successor States thereafter.

It also declared that failure to complete the exercise of apportionment of the assets and liabilities of the IX and X Schedule entities, would have no bearing on the distribution of employees of Public Sector Undertakings/ Corporations/Autonomous Bodies between the entities controlled exclusively by each of the successor States. This ::8::

Court relied upon the decisions in G.Rama Mohan Rao and another Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another2, P.B.Karunakar and others Vs. State of Telangana and others3 and Rani Vs. Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department and others4.

19. In our considered opinion, the Board of Intermediate Education of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh stands on the same footing as A.P. State Residential Educational Institutions Society of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh, and the principle laid down therein applies to the Board of Intermediate Education of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh as well.

20. We therefore direct that respondent No.3 shall prepare the final seniority lists of employees in all categories as on 2.6.2014; and respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall discuss with each other and agree on the modalities/guidelines for allocation of employees on basis of the said seniority list, and finalize the modalities for allocation of employees of the Board of Intermediate Education of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh between the respondent Nos.3 and 4 within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and the allocation of the employees shall be done as per the said norms within one month of finalization of such modalities/guidelines. All other grievances of the petitioners are left open to be considered in separate proceedings to be initiated after the final allocation of the employees.

2017 (6) ALD 103 (DB)

2018(3) ALD 470 (DB)

2017 (4) ALT 173 ::9::

21. The Writ Petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs."

In the light of the aforesaid order, no further orders are

required to be passed in the present writ petitions. The judgment

delivered in W.P.No.17883 of 2016 shall be applicable mutatis

mutandis in the present cases also.

Following the same, these Writ Petitions are allowed.

Let a copy of the order dated 19.03.2021, passed by this

Court in W.P.No.17883 of 2016, be kept on record in the present

cases.