Telangana High Court

D.Bala Prasada Rao, Hyderabad vs The Secretary, Energy Department ... on 2 December, 2022

Bench: P.Madhavi Devi

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


                 WRIT PETITION NO.13479 OF 2003


                               ORDER

In this Writ Petition, the petitioners are seeking a Writ of

Mandamus declaring the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent in Ref.

Memo No.NEDCAP/Pers/SL/2003 dt.07.05.2003 in maintaining

separate seniority lists for Degree and Diploma holders in the

promotional post of Assistant Managers/District Managers (Tech) and

seeking to maintain the same even for further promotional posts of

Managers (Tech) as illegal, arbitrary, etc., and to grant such other relief

or reliefs as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of

the case.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the

Corporation by name A.P. State Agro Industries Development

Corporation Limited ('Agros Limited' for short) was formed and

subsequently another organisation called Agro Pumpsets and

Implements Limited ('APIL' for short) came into existence as a

subsidiary to Agros Limited. Petitioners 1 and 2 have joined the services W.P.No.13479 of 2003

of Agros Limited as Junior Engineers on 01.01.1969 and 22.01.1969

respectively. Initially, the said post was called as Chargeman and later it

was re-designated as Junior Engineer and it was subsequently again re-

designated as Engineer. On the formation of APIL, applications were

called for from suitable candidates for appointment to the posts

Assistant Managers (AMs)/District Managers (DMs) carrying higher

pay and designation than the pay and designation of the Engineers

working in Agros Limited. Both the petitioners have applied for the

said post and were issued orders of appointment appointing them as

AMs/DMS with certain terms and conditions. The said orders protected

the earlier service with all the benefits with Agros Limited and it was

also stated that separate seniority lists will be maintained for Graduates

and Diploma Engineers as per the seniority lists then presently

maintained by Agros Limited. The posts of AMs/DMs are both

equivalent posts, i.e., if a person is working in District Office, he will be

called as District Manager (DM) and if he is transferred and posted at

Head Office, he will be called as Assistant Manager (AM) and both

carry equal pay and allowances.

W.P.No.13479 of 2003

3. Subsequently, the name of APIL was changed as NEDCAP

Limited, i.e., Non-Conventional Energy Development Corporation of

A.P. Limited. In order to set right the anomalies in the structure of pay

of the employees who joined from the services of Agros Limited vis-à-

vis the employees later directly recruited, the 2nd respondent addressed a

letter dt.19.04.1991 to the 1st respondent requesting to accord necessary

permission and on consideration of the same, the 1st respondent issued

G.O.Ms.No.165, Energy, Forests, Environment, Science and

Technology (Res) Department, dt.29.06.1992 allowing the pay scale of

Rs.1980 - 3500 to the existing AMs/DMs who have been absorbed from

Agros Limited, against their then existing scale of pay of Rs.1810 -

3230 with effect from 01.04.1990 and the future recruits were allowed

the scale of pay of Rs.1810 - 3230. It is submitted that the benefit was

given to the petitioners in recognition of their experience and seniority

in Agros Limited.

4. It is submitted that the condition of maintaining a separate

seniority list of Diploma holders and Graduates was only to protect the

seniority of the petitioners in Agros Limited, but after promotion as W.P.No.13479 of 2003

AMs/DMs along with other recruits of the 2nd respondent Corporation, a

common and integrated seniority list of Degree holders and Diploma

holders ought to have been maintained. It is submitted that in the 2nd

respondent Corporation, there were posts of Development Officers

(DOs) and Assistant Development Officers (ADOs) and Graduate

Engineers were recruited to the post of Development Officers, while

Diploma holders were recruited to the post of Assistant Developments

Officer who used to carry lesser scale of pay than the scale of pay of the

Development Officers. It is submitted that in the year 1999, for the first

time, promotions were given to the posts of AMs/DMs and both DOs

and ADOs were made feeder posts to the post of AMs/DMs and after

effecting promotions in the ratio of 1:1, both the posts of DOs and

ADOs were clubbed together and re-designated as Development

Officers giving them equal pay and even after promotions to the posts

AMs/DMs, separate seniority lists were being maintained for Degree

holders and Diploma holders in the post of Development Officers. It is

submitted that in the year 2001/2002, again promotions were given from

the post of Development Officers to the post of AMs/DMs and a

provisional seniority list of AMs/DMs was communicated by the 2nd W.P.No.13479 of 2003

respondent through his Circular dt.07.04.2003. It is submitted that in the

said list, respondents 3 to 6 were shown separately under the head of

'Decree Holders', while the petitioners were shown separately as

'Diploma Holders'. It is submitted that respondents 3 to 5 were

promoted as AMs/DMs in the year 1999 from the initial post of

Development Officers, while respondent No.6 was promoted to the said

post of AM/DM in the year 2001, whereas the petitioners had joined the

2nd respondent organisation as AM/DM in the year 1984. Therefore, the

grievance of the petitioners is that they are seniors to respondents 3 to 6

who have been promoted only in the years 1999-2001. It is submitted

that maintenance of two separate seniority lists between Graduate

holders and Diploma holders even after their promotion as AMs/DMs is

without any basis. It is submitted that separate seniority lists for Degree

holders and Diploma holders can only be maintained till they are

appointed in the feeder category, but once all of them have been

appointed as Assistant Manager/District Manager, a common and

integrated seniority list has to be prepared.

5. In view thereof, the petitioners have made a representation to the

official respondents on 17.04.2003, but without considering any of the W.P.No.13479 of 2003

contentions of the petitioners therein, the 2nd respondent has passed

orders finalising the provisional seniority list and the same was

communicated vide letter dt.07.05.2003. The petitioners were

communicated only the list of AMs (Tech) with Diploma qualifications

and separate final seniority list of AMs (Tech) with Degree qualification

was communicated to respondents 3 to 6. The petitioners again made

another representation to the 2nd respondent on 12.05.2003, but the 2nd

respondent did not take any action thereon.

6. It is submitted that the petitioners and 14 others had earlier filed

W.P.No.15875 of 1995 to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the

respondent therein is obliged to provide equal opportunity to the

Diploma DMs/AMs along with Degree DMs/AMs in the matter of all

service benefits including promotion without prescribing any ratio

between two categories for promotion to the next higher post of

Manager and consequently to direct the respondents to effect

promotions to the post of Manager with equal opportunity without any

ratio. This Court has dismissed the said Writ Petition on 23.12.1997

upholding the fixation of ratio of 1:1 for promotion to the next higher

post of Manager from the post of District Manager. It is however W.P.No.13479 of 2003

submitted that in the said Writ Petition, the 2nd respondent sought to

maintain separate lists for Degree and Diploma holders even amongst

the 29 individuals absorbed from Agros Limited in the post of

AMs/DMs, but it was not against the Degree holders directly recruited

from open market later to the appointments of the petitioners. Therefore,

according to the petitioners, the decision of the High Court has no

application to the facts of the present case.

7. It is further submitted that in the year 1995, the 2nd respondent

had addressed a letter dt.01.08.1995 to the Agros Limited requesting to

intimate the policy regarding promotions and the ratio being maintained

between Degree and Diploma holders and Agros Limited had replied to

the 2nd respondent stating that the said Corporation is following the ratio

of 1:1 between Degree and Diploma holders according to their seniority

in the cadre of Engineers. It was categorically informed that Agros

Limited was not following the above ratio for promotion of AMs/Area

Managers to the post of Deputy Managers or as Managers. According to

the petitioner, the 2nd respondent which is the subsidiary of Agros

Limited has to follow the same policy until a separate policy has been

formulated by the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that till W.P.No.13479 of 2003

date no separate policy has been formulated by the 2nd respondent. It is

further submitted that the preparation of final seniority list without

giving any notice to the petitioners is against principles of natural

justice. Thus, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition

challenging the maintenance of two separate seniority lists in respect of

Degree holders and Diploma holders in the very same post of

AMs/DMs.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, while

reiterating the submissions made in the writ affidavit, has drawn the

attention of this Court extensively to the appointment letters, the terms

and conditions of appointments and also the policy of promotions of

Agros Limited as intimated to the 2nd respondent. He submitted that the

2nd respondent has not given any reasons for not accepting the

objections of the petitioners to the provisional seniority list

dt.07.04.2003. Therefore, according to him, it is in clear violation of

principles of natural justice. He also referred to the averments made by

the petitioners in the reply affidavit, wherein it is clearly stated that no

promotion policy has been evolved by the 2nd respondent and since there W.P.No.13479 of 2003

is no denial of some of the contentions raised by the petitioners, they

have to be considered as admitted/accepted by the respondents.

9. The learned counsel representing respondent No.2, Sri Singam

Srinivasa Rao, however relied upon the averments made in the counter

affidavit and submitted that the issue is now res judicata as the very

same issue relating to maintenance of separate seniority lists for

Diploma holders and Graduate holders had come up before this Court in

a Writ Petition filed by one of the petitioners herein with 14 others in

W.P.No.15875 of 1995 and this Court has upheld the said policy. He

submitted that one of the petitioners herein being one of the petitioners

therein has raised the very same issue in this Writ Petition and therefore,

this Writ Petition is not maintainable. He further submitted that the

General Body of the respondent organisation has passed a resolution to

maintain separate seniority lists for Diploma holders and Degree holders

and to promote them in the ratio of 1:1 and therefore, according to him,

there is no prejudice caused to the petitioners in granting promotions.

10. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,

this Court finds that the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents, W.P.No.13479 of 2003

i.e., respondents 3 to 6 have joined the 2nd respondent organisation in the

category of AMs/DMs. While the petitioners joined in the year 1984, the

unofficial respondents have joined in the years 1999-2001. Admittedly,

both the petitioners as well as respondents 3 to 6 have joined in the

category of AMs/DMs. At the time of appointment itself, it was clearly

mentioned that the seniority of the petitioners in Agros Limited would

be maintained and a separate seniority list would be prepared for such

purpose between the Diploma holders and Degree holders. In the year

1995, when separate seniority lists were prepared between Diploma

holders and Graduate holders of all the candidates who have been

absorbed from Agros Limited, a Writ Petition in W.P.No.15875 of 1995

was filed. This Court has gone into the issue as to the desirability and

reasonableness of maintaining separate seniority lists between Diploma

holders and Degree holders and has upheld the same. The relevant

portion of the said order is as under:

"It is, therefore, clear that the judgment in N.Abdul Basheer Vs. K.K.Karunakaran is distinguishable on facts as in the said decision graduate and non-graduate Excise Prohibition Inspectors were not treated separately throughout their service, their pay scales were same and the seniority list is one and the same and they were discharging same functions and no distinction was maintained W.P.No.13479 of 2003

between the graduate and non-graduate Excise Inspectors at any time and they were treated as belonging to one cadre from its inception. While in the present case the distinction between graduate Dist. Managers and diploma Dist. Managers is maintained separately both for the purpose of pay and also for the purpose of seniority from its inception though no doubt they were discharging same functions. In view of the above, the judgment in N.Abdul Basheer Vs. K.K. Karunakaran is not relevant to the facts of the present case.

It follows from the above, the fixation of ratio of 1:1 for promotion to the next higher post namely Manager from the post of Dist. Manager (Degree-holders and Diploma holders) is not in violation of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the classification is based on higher educational qualifications. Further, the petitioner's contention is also without any substance if the issue is examined from another angle. Strictly speaking both the graduates and non-graduates are treated equally as the posts are to be filled up in the ratio of 1:1. Since the posts available are 5, graduates are getting 3 posts while non-graduates are getting two posts, had there been six posts both graduates and non-graduates would have got equal number of posts.

In any view of the matter there is no substance in the argument of the petitioner. The Writ petition is therefore, devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

11. Therefore, it is obvious that this Court has already considered the

issue of maintaining separate seniority lists in the cadre of AMs/DMs on

the basis of educational qualifications for the promotion to the post of W.P.No.13479 of 2003

Managers. In the present case also, the petitioners are challenging the

maintenance of separate seniority lists between Diploma holders and

Graduate holders for next promotion to the post of Manager. Therefore,

though seniority lists may be of different years, the principle is the same

and since the order of this Court has not been challenged by the

petitioners, the order of this Court has become final and it applies as res

judicata in respect of the unofficial respondents herein.

12. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall