Telangana High Court
Dr. M. Vasantha Kumari vs Union Of India on 23 March, 2023
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.7976 of 2023
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel
for the petitioner; Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel
representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy
Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1; and
Mr. P.Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel for the State
of Andhra Pradesh for respondents No.5 to 7.
2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legality and
validity of the order dated 13.03.2023 issued by
respondent No.1 allotting respondent No.8 to the State of
Telangana.
3. The challenge has been made on the ground that
such allocation is contrary to Section 77 of the Andhra
Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (briefly, "the Act"
hereinafter).
4. Petitioner before us is serving as Joint Director
Class-A, Sangareddy District, under the Directorate of
Animal Husbandry, Government of Telangana. She is
aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.03.2023, as the
allotment of respondent No.8 to the State of Telangana in
the cadre of Joint Director in the office of Director of
Animal Husbandry would jeopardise her career prospects,
including by way of promotion.
5. From a perusal of the order dated 13.03.2023 we find
that following bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra
Pradesh into two separate States of Telangana and Andhra
Pradesh, respondent No.8 was allocated to Andhra Pradesh
vide order dated 14.01.2016. This came to be challenged
by him before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal
(Tribunal) in O.A.No.209 of 2016. An interim order was
passed on 29.01.2016 staying the final allocation and
allowing respondent No.8 to continue his duty at
Telangana. Since there was delay in disposal of
O.A.No.209 of 2016, respondent No.8 filed a writ petition
before this Court, being W.P.No.4391 of 2016, seeking
revision of allocation. However, vide order dated
16.02.2016, the writ petition was dismissed with a
direction to the Tribunal to pass a speaking order within
two weeks.
6. In the meanwhile, Tribunal was abolished whereafter
O.A.No.209 of 2016 was transferred to the High Court
where it was registered as W.P (TR).No.5482 of 2017.
7. This Court by order dated 08.12.2020 allowed the
writ petition by directing the Government of India in the
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
Department of Personnel and Training, to permanently
allocate respondent No.8 to the State of Telangana with
effect from 14.01.2016; and further directing the State of
Telangana to give him posting commensurate with his
service status and also to release his pay and allowances
with interest.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, State of Telangana
as well as State of Andhra Pradesh filed S.L.P
(C).Nos.1565-1566 of 2021 before the Supreme Court.
Both the special leave petitions were dismissed by the
Supreme Court on 14.09.2022 by upholding the order of
the High Court.
9. In the meanwhile, alleging non-compliance of the
aforesaid order of the High Court, respondent No.8 has
filed contempt case before this Court, being Contempt Case
No.739 of 2022.
10. Thereafter, Government of India in exercise of powers
under Section 77(3) of the Act revised the final allocation of
respondent No.8 from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana. As a
consequence, the impugned order came to be passed in the
following manner:
9. Dr. B.Subba Rayudu, Joint Director Class-A shall
be adjusted against an available regular vacancy of
Joint Director in the Office of Director of Animal
Husbandry, Telangana. However, in case of non-
availability of vacancy, Telangana Government shall,
either accommodate the petitioner by creating a
supernumerary post or adjust against the regular
analogous post, till a future vacancy arises in the cadre
of Joint Director, O/o. Director of Animal Husbandry,
Telangana.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner could not have contested the claim of
respondent No.8 at any stage prior to recasting of the final
allocation by the Central Government. Now that the same
has been made, she has made the challenge. If respondent
No.8 is allowed to serve in Telangana, it would adversely
affect the career prospects of the petitioner. Learned
Senior Counsel further submits that at the time of filing
special leave petitions by the two States, Supreme Court
had passed an interlocutory order on 22.02.2021 clarifying
that respondent No.8 should be given a posting in the State
of Andhra Pradesh which he should join and upon joining
he should be paid his salary and allowances. Though
finally the special leave petitions were dismissed by the
Supreme Court vide the order dated 14.09.2022, he
submits that there are certain factual errors in the
deliberation of the Supreme Court insofar determination of
the domicile status of respondent No.8 in Telangana is
concerned. That apart, the said decision may also be
questionable in the light of Section 77 of the Act.
Therefore, review petition has been filed by the State of
Telangana.
12. We are afraid, we cannot accept the contention
advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
Supreme Court by a detailed judgment dated 14.09.2022
has dismissed S.L.P (C).Nos.1565-1566 of 2021 filed by
State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh against
the judgment and order dated 08.12.2020 passed by this
Court allowing the writ petition of respondent No.8.
Therefore, the judgment and order dated 08.12.2020 has
attained finality.
13. It is needless to mention that when a petition is
dismissed, the interim order passed at an earlier stage
would automatically stand nullified by dismissal of the
petition. Supreme Court having finally put its seal of
approval to the reallocation of respondent No.8 to the State
of Telangana, it would not be open for this Court to go
behind the order passed by the Supreme Court. Mere
pendency of review petition before the Supreme Court
without stay would be no ground to interfere with the
impugned order dated 13.03.2023 which is nothing but a
consequential order to give effect to the judgment of the
Supreme Court.
14. We therefore do not find any merit in the writ petition
warranting interference.
15. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
______________________________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
23.03.2023
vs
