Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 695 (AP)

Pappu Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-07-29

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2022
JUDGMENT Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: '.....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 1 in issuing the G.O. Rt. No. 68, School Education (Services-I) Department, dated 10.03.2021 wherein posting the petitioner as Principal, IASE, Nellore, which is lower cadre post and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings Rc. No. 1021/620/2020-ES1-CSE, dated 16.03.2021 are illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same and pass such other orders'. 2. Heard Ms. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-III for the respondents. 3. The brief case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Deputy Educational Officer through APPSC and joined in the month of April, 1995. Subsequently he got promotions, finally promoted as Additional Director of School Education in the month of March, 2020 and posted at Samagra Shiksha (Previously SSA) and worked up to 16.12.2020. On 15.12.2020 vide G.O. Rt. No. 249, the 1st respondent has posted one Sri Manne Caleb, Additional Director (SW) and Secretary LIDCAP as Additional State Project Director in the office of 3rd respondent on deputation basis under Foreign Service Terms land Conditions. Pursuant to the said G.O., the 3rd respondent has issued repatriation orders and directed the petitioner to hand over the complete charge and report to the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 16.12.2020, by that time there are no vacancies available in the cadre of Additional Director in School Education Department. On 17.12.2020 the petitioner was reported to the 2nd respondent, since then he has not received any salary till date. Surprisingly the petitioner have posted as Principal, IASE, Nellore in the existing vacancy, which is a lower cadre post (i.e. Joint Director) vide proceedings dated 10.03.2021 issued by the 1st respondent, consequent upon which the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 16.03.2021 directing the petitioner to submit his joining report, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence this writ petition is filed. 4. Per contra, the respondents 1 to 3 filed counter-affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and contended that there were only two sanctioned posts in the cadre of additional director posts in the School Education prior to issue of G.O. Ms. Hence this writ petition is filed. 4. Per contra, the respondents 1 to 3 filed counter-affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and contended that there were only two sanctioned posts in the cadre of additional director posts in the School Education prior to issue of G.O. Ms. No. 66, School Education (Ser. I) Department dated 30.09.2021. Keeping in view of the requirement, for administration purpose, basing on the seniority, on deputation or on FAC or adhoc, promotions will be given to the rightful candidates as per the seniority. Further on the date of promotion to the post of Additional Director, there was no vacancy in the 2nd respondent and that keeping in view of the necessity, on deputation, by promotion the petitioner to the post of the Additional director, entrusted on deputation to work under 3rd respondent. Later certain vacancies arose; accordingly the next candidates were adjusted in the available promotional avenues. 5. It is further contended that the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Director was considered during the panel year 2019-20, keeping in view of the two deputation vacancies of Additional Director posts i.e. Secretary, KGBV and ASPD in the office of the SPD, SS, besides one regular vacancy. Had the deputation vacancies not been taken into consideration, during the panel year 2019-20, he would not have been promoted as Additional Director, since he stood at Sl. No. 2 among three officers in the seniority list of JD/RJDSEs in the said panel year. It is further contended that out of the total cadre strength of seven Additional Directors, two officers were already holding the Additional Director posts as on 29.11.2021. Subsequently Government have issued orders dated 29.12.2021 read with G.O. Rt. No. 300, dated 31.12.2021 promoting certain JDs/RJDSEs to the posts of Additional Directors, duly reserving one post of Additional Director, as directed by this Court in I.A. No. 4 of 2021 in W.P. No. 7240 of 2021, dated 29.11.2021 filed by the petitioner. Further it is contended that on the orders of this Court, the petitioner will be accommodated in any one of the two vacancies of Additional Director of School Education. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Further it is contended that on the orders of this Court, the petitioner will be accommodated in any one of the two vacancies of Additional Director of School Education. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was promoted as Additional Director of School Education in the month of March, 2020 and worked up to 16.12.2020. Subsequently on 15.12.2020, the 1st respondent has posted one Mr. Manne Caleb, Additional Director (SW) and Secretary LIDCAP as Additional State Project Director in the office of 3rd respondent on deputation basis under Foreign Service terms and conditions. Pursuant to the G.P. Rt. No. 249, the 3rd respondent has issued repatriation orders and directed the petitioner to handover the charge to the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 16.12.2020. Pursuant to the said orders, the petitioner reported to the 2nd respondent on 17.12.2020, since then the petitioner has not received any salary till date, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. 7. Learned Government Pleader for respondents contended that while repatriating the petitioner, cancelled the deputation orders and on receipt of the impugned orders, without joining at the transferred post directly approached this Court, which is illegal and arbitrary. However, as per directions of this Court dated 29.11.2021 one post of Additional Director is reserved. Further the Government vide G.O. Ms. No. 66, dated 30.09.2021 created five posts in the cadre of Additional Director of School Education in addition to the existing cadre strength of two. Now total seven posts, in which four posts meant for deputation, which is fall under the administrative control of School Education Department. Therefore basing on the orders of this Court, the petitioner will be accommodated in any of the two vacancies of Additional Director of School Education. 8. Considering the submissions of learned Government Pleader for the respondents that the respondents will be accommodated in any one of the two vacancies of Additional Director of School Education. As per directions of this Court dated 24.03.2022 one post is reserved in the cadre of Additional Director as on 29.11.2021 and as on 24.03.2022. The respondents given promotion to the petitioner and posted him as Additional Director of School Education, which is whether on deputation basis or regular basis has no relevance. As per directions of this Court dated 24.03.2022 one post is reserved in the cadre of Additional Director as on 29.11.2021 and as on 24.03.2022. The respondents given promotion to the petitioner and posted him as Additional Director of School Education, which is whether on deputation basis or regular basis has no relevance. By the date of repatriation there may be no existing vacancies, but it is the duty of the respondents to choose any one of the post, which is equal to the same rank of the petitioner when it requires repatriation, whereas the respondents contended that as on the date of repatriation orders there is no vacancies available in the same cadre and consequently posted the petitioner to a College as Principal, which is lower rank of the present rank. Such act of the respondents is declared as highly illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner cannot be penalized, in view of the inaction on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as claimed in the writ petition. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, upon perusal of the material on record and considering the submissions of learned Counsel, this Court finds that it is a fit case issue a writ of mandamus in favour of the petitioner. 10. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed, while declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the G.O. Rt. No. 68, dated 10.03.2021 and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in Rc. No. 1021/620/2020-ES1-CSE, dated 16.03.2021 as illegal and arbitrary and same is hereby set aside. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the writ petition shall stand closed.