Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 339 (AP)

M. v. Prasad VS Anil Kumar Singhal

2023-02-07

M.GANGA RAO

body2023
ORDER : 1. The petitioner filed this contempt case under the provisions of Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) and also under the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India alleging the wilful and deliberate violation of orders passed by this Court on 31.08.2018 in W.P. No. 16960 of 2001, whereby this Court directed the respondent-Devasthanam to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption as Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator and the said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 2. The case of the petitioner is that originally he was selected and enrolled as Home Guard in Chittoor District by the Superintendent of Police outside the sanctioned strength of the District for being deputed to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD), Tirupati by proceedings dated 19.03.1991 of the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor and kept at the disposal of TTD’s Home Guards, a voluntary organization. He was deputed to the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer of the TTD on 27.04.1991 and he was paid Rs.74.75 Ps. per day on NMR basis from the contingency fund of TTD. But, his services were continuously utilized as Computer Operator in the Computer center of the respondent-Devasthanam as he passed B.Sc. (MPC) in Second division in the year 1987 and M.Sc. (Applied Mathematics) in Second division in the year 1990 and he also obtained P.G. Diploma in Computers in the year 1988, as per the request of the Chief Accounts Officer, TTD. As he was qualified to hold the post of Computer Operator and worked as such since 1991, he sought for absorption as Computer Operator, but his services were regularized as Office Subordinate-cum-Watchman along with 97 Security Guards as per the proceedings the Executive Officer, TTD, Tirupati dated 18.02.2016, who were appointed during the period 1990-1992 as Office Subordinate-cum-Watchman with effect from 14.12.1998 extending the monetary benefit with effect from 29.01.2008, as per Rule 5(i) of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, 1989. But, the petitioner services were utilized as Computer Operator. Hence, he seeks absorption/regularization of his services as Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator. 3. But, the petitioner services were utilized as Computer Operator. Hence, he seeks absorption/regularization of his services as Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator. 3. The respondent-Devasthanam states that there is no existing sanctioned vacancy of Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator in the TTD establishment rolls and the post of Junior Computer Operator is only sanctioned to the Computer Science Department of TTD Educational Institutions in the Lab Mechanic Cadre with prescribed qualifications, for which the petitioner is not qualified. Since there is a Computer Department in the respondent- Devasthanam and as per the request of the petitioner along with others only, their services were utilized as Computer Operators and now the Devasthanam is utilizing the computer services on outsourcing basis. 4. After considering the rival contentions, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent-Devasthanam to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption as Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator in the respondent-Devasthanam. 5. The respondent-Devasthanam considered the petitioner’s case as per the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 16960 of 2001 dated 31.08.2018, by proceedings dated 22.10.2018, by holding thus: (i) There is no sanctioned post of Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator in TTD Establishment rolls and the post of Junior Computer Opeartor was sanctioned to the Computer Science Department of TTD Educational Institutions in the Lab Mechanic Cadre only. (ii) Further, the basic qualifications prescribed for the post of Junior Computer Operator is I Class or II Class B.Sc. (Maths/Electronics/Physics/Computer Science/Statistics) and as could be seen from the Provisional Certificate Disposal No. 2589 II 5/89 Register No. 4682 from the May 1987 of Sri M.V. Prasad has passed B.Sc. (Maths, Physics and Chemistry) in Third Class from the S.V. University. So, he is not having the requisite qualification to consider for the post of Junior Computer Operator. (iii) Previously, Sri M.V. Prasad, Home Guard on consolidated pay has applied for the post of Junior Computer Operator in the year 1996 and attended the written test, practical test and oral viva test with the Employment Sponsored candidates and does not succeed in the above said tests. (iv) The Services of the Sri M.V. Prasad as Home Guard in TD were already absorbed/regularized as Attender-cum-Watchman w.e.f. 14.12.1998 as per the orders of the Government. (iv) The Services of the Sri M.V. Prasad as Home Guard in TD were already absorbed/regularized as Attender-cum-Watchman w.e.f. 14.12.1998 as per the orders of the Government. The post of Junior Computer Operator (Computer Science Department) in Lab Mechanic Cadre which he claimed belongs to Non-teaching post of TTD Educational Institutions, but there is no provision of Recruitment by Transfer for the post of Junior Computer Operator from any other cadre. (v) The Post of Junior Computer Operator in the Computer Science Department in Lab Mechanic Cadre was not incorporated in the TTD Service Rules and the proposals of inclusion/incorporation of the said post with method of recruitment and qualification in the TTD Service Rules was pending before the Government for its approval. It is further held that the services of the petitioner as Home Guard on consolidated pay were already absorbed/regularized as Office Subordinate-cum-Watchman w.e.f. 14.12.1998 as per the Government Orders and accepted his regularization and that probation was also declared in the said cadre, and hence, he was not entitled for absorption again in the cadre of Computer Operator/Data Entry Operation and thereby his request was rejected. 6. The petitioner filed this contempt case alleging that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for absorption and regularization on the ground that there is no sanctioned post of Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator in the respondent-Devasthanam and only Junior Computer Operator post is available and the petitioner is not qualified to appoint as Junior Computer Operator, is illegal and arbitrary. The rejection is in violation of the orders passed by this Court as this Court found that the petitioner’s services are being utilized in the Computer center since 1991 and he is fully qualified and eligible to be absorbed as Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator in the Computer center, Accounts section of the respondent-Devasthanam. This Court directed his case to be considered as Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator but not in the post of Junior Computer Operator. 7. This Court directed his case to be considered as Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator but not in the post of Junior Computer Operator. 7. Sri A. Bhaskara Chary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the rejection order dated 22.10.2018 was passed by the respondent-contemnor by misreading and misrepresenting the orders passed by this Court though this Court specifically held that the petitioner is fully qualified and eligible to be appointed as Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator and the rejection of the petitioner’s case on the ground that there is no sanctioned post of Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to wilful and deliberate violation of the orders of this Court. 8. Sri A. Prabhakar Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would contend that the respondent-contemnor, as per the orders of this Court passed in W.P. No. 16960 of 2001 dated 31.08.2018 and as per the T.T.D. Service Rules, issued G.O.Ms. No. 1060 dated 24.10.1989 after elaborately considering the petitioner’s case by holding that there is no sanctioned post of Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator and he was already absorbed as Office Subordinate-cum-Watchman as per the Government Orders. The respondent placed the proposals for sanction of four posts viz. (1) E.D.P. Manager, (2) System Analysts, (3) Programmers and (4) Data Entry Operators (6 posts) and the Board passed the Resolution No. 770 dated 27/28-11-1996 approving the Items 1, 2 and 3 and in respect of Item No. 4 i.e. Data Entry Operators, the Board directed to train in-service persons. The petitioner is already a regular employee of the respondent-Devasthanam and hence his services could not be regularized again as Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator in the absence of sanctioned posts. There is no wilful or deliberate violation of the orders passed by this Court under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. 9. The order passed by the respondent-contemnor on 22.10.2018 gives rise to a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar and Others, (1996) SCC 291 wherein it is held at Para 6 as follows: “......It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the Single Judge could not be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act.” 10. In view of the above discussion, this Court found that the respondent-contemnor has not violated the orders passed by this Court wilfully and deliberately to punish him under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this contempt case shall also stand dismissed.