Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 518 (AP)

T. D. Bhavani v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-08-13

LALITHA KANNEGANTI, M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2020
JUDGMENT Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of the respondents in terminating the petitioners' services as Typist-Cum-Clerk and Attender respectively in the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC), Prakasam at Ongole through Dis Nos.7228 and 1471 of 2018 dated 22.10.2018 on the ground of transferring of the said Court to Kurnool as VII Additional District and Sessions Court - Cum - Special Court for Trial of Offences against Women. 2. Heard Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4. 3. The case of the petitioners in nutshell is that the petitioner No.1 was appointed as Typist-Cum-Assistant vide proceedings dated 16.11.2017 and petitioner No.2 was appointed as Attender vide proceedings dated 26.07.2014 in the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC), Prakasam at Ongole. They were appointed on contract basis as per Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh State Subordinate Service Rules by respondent No.4. The petitioners were posted in their respective posts in V Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC), Prakasam at Ongole in the existing vacancies. After joining duty, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were deputed to work in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Ongole and in Family Court, Ongole respectively as per G.O.Ms.No.38 Law (LA & J Courts.C) Department dated 27.03.2011. The appointment of the petitioners is purely on contract basis. As per the appointment letters, place of posting shall not be considered as a permanent arrangement even during the tenure of appointment and the individual shall be liable to be transferred to such other places as may be directed by the Appointing Authority. It is stated that the petitioners discharged their duties with utmost dedication and they were also entitled for regularization as per the proceedings of the erstwhile High Court through order in R.O.C.No.275/E1/2008 dated 31.12.2018. Though the petitioners were satisfactorily performing their duties without any complaint from the Officers, their services were terminated w.e.f. 22.10.2018 afternoon on the ground of shifting of V Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC), Prakasam at Ongole to Kurnool District to function as VII Additional District and Sessions Court - Cum - Special Court for Trial of Offences against Women, Kurnool with regular staff pattern. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners underwent regular selection process and were appointed as Typist-Cum-Assistant and as Attender respectively by the respondent No.4. He further submits that the petitioners are entitled for regularization as per the proceedings dated 31.12.2018 issued by the High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the circular issued by the erstwhile High of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad stating that the Andhra Pradesh State Fast Track Courts Employees Association and the employees working in the Fast Track Courts on contract basis in the State of Telangana submitted representations requesting to absorb them in regular services of the Subordinate Judiciary, in pursuance of the orders dated 13.09.2012 in I.A.No.36 in Transfer Case (C) No.22 of 2001 on the file of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the representation of the contract employees and the orders dated 13.09.2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in exercise of the powers vested under Rule 36 (B) of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003, as amended under G.O.Ms.No.100, Law (LA & J-Home Courts D) Department dated 08.08.2013 and G.O.Ms.No190, General Administration (Services-A) Department dated 08.08.2017 issued by the Government of Telangana, the erstwhile High court was pleased to pass the following order: "All the Unit Heads in both the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh are hereby directed to issue proceedings absorbing the Head Clerks (other than retired employees), Stenographers, Junior Assistant-Cum-Typists and Attenders, who were appointed and continuing in service as on date in Fast Track Courts on contract basis in Judicial Department, in the existing regular vacancies in their respective Units with effect from 13.09.2012, the date of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.A.No.36 in Tr.C.No.22 of 2001, without affecting the seniority of those who are in regular service as on the date of the order of absorption. If here are persons who are recruited as staff of the Fast Track Courts after 13.09.2012, they shall also be absorbed in regular service as on the respective dates of appointment of each of them, without affecting seniority of those who are already in service as on the date of absorption of each such employee, provided they are eligible in terms of qualification and age as per A.P.J.M.S. Rules, keeping in view of the following guidelines: 1. The Head Clerks (other than retired employees) working on contract basis may be absorbed in the post of Junior Assistant provided they are eligible in terms of qualification and age as per A.P.J.M.S. Rules, as on the date of their respective appointments without affecting the seniority of those who are already in regular service. 2. The Stenographers working on contract basis may be absorbed in the post of Stenographers Grade-III provided they are eligible in terms of qualification and age as per A.P.J.M.S. Rules, a on the date of their respective appointments without affecting the seniority of those who are already in regular service 3. The Junior Assistant-Cum-Typist working on contract basis may be absorbed either in the post of Junior Assistant (Category-8) OR Typist (Category-9) provided they are eligible in terms of required educational qualification and technical qualification and age as per A.P.J.M.S. Rules, as on the date of their respective appointments for either of the posts without affecting the seniority of those who are already in regular service. 4. The Attenders working on contract basis may be absorbed in the post of Office Subordinates provided they are eligible in terms of qualification and age as per A.P.J.M.S. Rules, as on the date of their respective appointments without affecting the seniority of those who are already in regular service. 5. The relaxation of age is required to the candidates working in the categories of Head Clerks, Stenographers, Junior Assistant - Cum- Typists, the same may be intimated to the High Court for recommending to the respective Governments through High Court as per Rule 36 (A) of the APJMS Rules. 6. The seniority among the members working on contract basis in Fast Track Courts may be reckoned as per the date of their initial appointment. 7. An undertaking should be obtained from the individuals to the effect that they will not have any claims in future in respect of seniority, without affecting the seniority of those who are already in regular service. Therefore, all the Unit Heads in both the States are directed to issue necessary proceedings in the matter accordingly and submit the same to the High Court for perusal and approval." 5. Therefore, all the Unit Heads in both the States are directed to issue necessary proceedings in the matter accordingly and submit the same to the High Court for perusal and approval." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the circular of the Hon'ble High Court, the petitioners were entitled for regularization and though there is a clear vacancy, the respondents without considering the same have terminated the petitioners on flimsy grounds. It was submitted that as per the proceedings of the High Court if there are persons who are recruited as staff of the Fast Track Courts after 13.09.2012, shall also be absorbed in regular service as on the respective dates of appointment of each of them without affecting seniority of those who are already in service as on the date of absorption of each such employee. The petitioners who are eligible were not considered basing on the sole ground of shifting the Court. The petitioners' services were terminated though there are no remarks against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before this Court the interim order passed by erstwhile High Court in W.P.M.P.No.50517 of 2016 in W.P.No.41256 of 2016 and batch in the case of Court Managers, whose services were terminated by the resolution dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Administrative Committee and they were re-admitted forthwith. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon an order dated 02.08.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.A.No.279 of 2010 in W.P.(Civil) No.1022 of 1989 and another judgment reported in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 7. Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the appointment of the petitioners is purely on temporary basis. The petitioners' case could not be considered for transfer as the vacancies on contract basis are not available by the time of shifting of V Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Ongole, which is a temporary Court. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 further submits that the proceedings were issued by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in ROC No.275/E1/2008 dated 31.12.2018, whereas the petitioners' services were terminated on 22.10.2018. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 further submits that the proceedings were issued by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in ROC No.275/E1/2008 dated 31.12.2018, whereas the petitioners' services were terminated on 22.10.2018. Since the petitioners were not in service as on the date of issuance of proceedings, dated 31.12.2018, they are not entitled for the benefit of the said proceedings. Further the said proceedings are prospective in nature and cannot be given effect retrospectively. Hence, the same cannot be applied in the case of the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners were not at all appointed on regular selection process as there were no regular posts and the petitioner No.1 also did not complete one year of service by the time of her termination. The termination of the petitioners is only due to shifting of the Court. It is submitted that the petitioners have not challenged the termination orders initially but after issuance of circular dated 31.12.2018, they approached this Court. According to him, the petitioners were terminated after duly following the procedure and on issuing one month's prior notice as per the terms and conditions of their appointment orders. 8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 relied upon a decision reported in Secretary to Govt Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat and another v. A. Singamuthu, (2017) LawSuit(SC) 180 and another decision reported in Yogesh Mahajan v. Prof R C Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, (2018) LawSuit(SC) 56 for the proposition that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time further when there was no evidence on record to show that the appointment on contractual basis or on ad-hoc basis was made in accordance with law or any regular procedure or by following the necessary rules. 9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 also relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Gauhati High Court through Registrar General v. Goto Ete and Others, (2018) LawSuit(SC) 382 . He summed up his arguments stating that the proceedings dated 31.12.2018 are not applicable to the petitioners as they were terminated from the contract services on 22.10.2018 and the proceedings are issued thereafter which are prospective in nature. He summed up his arguments stating that the proceedings dated 31.12.2018 are not applicable to the petitioners as they were terminated from the contract services on 22.10.2018 and the proceedings are issued thereafter which are prospective in nature. There were no vacancies to accommodate the petitioners and they were appointed only on contract basis as such they have no right to seek regularization. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a detailed reply and submitted that the contention of learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 that there were no vacancies at the time of petitioners' termination is without any basis. There are vacancies available now and the petitioners can be absorbed. He further submits that the arguments of the respondents' counsel that the circular issued by the High Court was subsequent to the termination of the petitioners as such they cannot take shelter is misconceived as in other Districts similar cases were considered and they were absorbed into the service. In support of this, he has relied upon proceedings dated 16.07.2019 issued by the Principal District Judge, Guntur. The relevant portion is as under: "Sri Y. Ramanagu, worked as Office Subordinate, VII Additional District Court, Guntur and the said Court was converted as Special Court and transferred to Kadapa to function as VII Additional District and Sessions Court-Cum-Special Court for offences against women, Kadapa. In view of the transfer of the Court, the Services of Sri Y. Ramanagu, were terminated w.e.f. 27.07.2018 by the Hon'ble High Court in ROC No.179/E1/2013 dated 15.09.2018 and directed the District Court, Guntur to appoint him on outsourcing basis in vacancy available. M/s Royal Manpower Services, Guntur sponsored the individual to work as Office Subordinate. Accordingly the District Court, Guntur under proceedings dated 15.09.2018 placed the services of the individual as Office Subordinate at disposal of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. The District Court, Guntur under the letter 3rd cited sought instructions from the Honourable High Court as to whether the candidature for Sri Y.Ramanagu can be considered for absorption as per proceedings of Honourable High Court reference 1st cited. The District Court, Guntur under the letter 3rd cited sought instructions from the Honourable High Court as to whether the candidature for Sri Y.Ramanagu can be considered for absorption as per proceedings of Honourable High Court reference 1st cited. The Hon'ble High Court under the proceedings reference 4th cited considered the candidature of Sri Y. Ramanagu who was appointed Office Subordinate on contract basis in the VII Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Guntur to absorb him in regular post of Office Subordinate and accorded permission to absorb Sri Y. Ramanagu in regular post of Office-Subordinate a per the proceedings of the Hon'ble High Court 1st cited." 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the incumbent therein was terminated on 27.07.2018 and the proceedings were issued on 31.12.2018. The petitioners herein also stand on the same footing. Therefore, he requested this Court to pass similar relief as that of Sri Y. Ramanagu, who was terminated and later absorbed in the regular existing vacancy. 12. In the light of the above pleadings the issue that falls for consideration before this Court is "Whether the petitioners are entitled for the similar relief as that of Sri Y.Ramanagu in the light of the proceedings of the High Court dated 31.12.2018?" 13. There is no dispute about the fact that both the petitioners and Sri Y.Ramanagu, who are working on temporary basis in their respective Courts, were terminated by the respondents. However, the District Judge, Guntur has addressed a letter to the High Court in case of Sri Y.Ramanagu and in turn the High Court directed the District Judge to absorb him on regular basis in the post of Office Subordinate in the light of the proceedings dated 31.12.2018. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents takes an exception to the case of the petitioners stating that the petitioners' services were terminated on 22.10.2018 and the proceedings of the High Court are dated 31.12.2018 and the proceedings are only prospective in nature. We are not able to appreciate such a contention made by learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the reason that even the services of Sri Y.Ramanagu were also terminated before the proceedings of the High Court. 14. Article 14 of the Constitution of India enunciates the equality principle in the administration of justice for the people who are similarly situated there should be similar and equal treatment. 14. Article 14 of the Constitution of India enunciates the equality principle in the administration of justice for the people who are similarly situated there should be similar and equal treatment. Unequal treatment of equals or equal treatment of unequal is no doubt a clear violaton of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 15. In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners' case for regularization has to be considered in the light of the proceedings dated 31.12.2018 of the High Court and the proceedings dated 16.07.2019 issued by the Principal District Judge, Guntur. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings in Dis.Nos.7228/2018 and 1471/2018, dated 22.10.2018 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of ROC No.275/E1/2008 dated 31.12.2018. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.