Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1477 (AP)

T. Rathnakara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-10-18

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2024
ORDER : 1. 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 to declare the proceedings/Memo No. 2524/CPR & RD/B2/2014, dated 23.02.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent, through which the request of the petitioner for appointment of EP (PR&RD) was rejected as being illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same with a direction to appoint the petitioner EO (PR & RD) with all consequential service benefits by issuing a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and pass such other orders.....” 2. Heard Mr. J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader, Panchayat Raj and Mr. V. Venkata Nagaraju, learned Standing Counsel for respondents/APPSC. 3. The precise case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent issued Group-II Notification No. 39/2011, dated 29.12.2011. As per notification, the petitioner has applied and participated in the selection process and he was provisionally selected for the executive post by way of written examination. The petitioner was given option to the post code No. 27 (Executive Officer Grade-II in A.P. Panchahat Raj Department). The Public Service Commissioner addressed a letter dated 30.04.2013 to the Department that the petitioner is selected to the post of Executive Officer, Grade-II in A.P. Panchayat Raj Department, in as much as he got 300 marks in Zone-II against Roster Point 52/8. The other persons who are selected for other executive posts were appointed in the respective department by the respective appointing authority, but unfortunately the petitioner was not appointed as Executive Officer Grade-II by the Department. Therefore the petitioner made representations dated 21.10.2013, 24.10.2013 and 25.11.2013 to the Public Service Commission, seeking intervention in the matter. In the meanwhile the Public Service Commission/3rd respondent addressed a letter dated 07.11.2013 to the 2nd respondent, who informed the 3rd respondent that there is one carry forward vacancy of Executive Officer Grade-II and the same was filled up by the Commission and was sent to department vide proceedings dated 30.04.2013 and that the petitioner was not being appointed till date through the selection list was finally furnished on 30.04.2013 and it is unnecessarily delayed. As per G.O.Ms. No. 81, dated 20.02.2010 and G.O.Ms. As per G.O.Ms. No. 81, dated 20.02.2010 and G.O.Ms. No. 84, dated 24.02.2010 the post of Executive Officer Grade-II has been merged with Panchayat Secretary Grade-I and that though the rules were issued in 2010 indent was sent by the department to Public Service Commission on 12.07.2011 almost after 1 ½ years as if there is a post of Executive Officer Grade-II. Accordingly the Public Service Commission made recruitment and recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as Executive Officer Grade-II. However, it is added therein that if the appointment of Executive Officer Grade-II cannot be given to appoint the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary Grade-I, which is illegal, the post is not existing 1½ years after rules have been framed and the Public Service Commission making the said post without verification by both Public Service Commission and also Panchayat Raj Department. Thereby the petitioner has lost opportunity to be selected for executive posts along with his counterparts. The 2nd respondent to cover up the mistake and blunder committed by them and only to avoid unnecessary litigation and to appease the petitioner, who was appointed Panchayat Raj Secretary Grade-I through proceedings dated 28.12.2013. The post was not even notified and as a matter of fact, it cannot be notified in as much as there is no procedure of making appointment to Panchayat Raj Secretary Grade-I through direct recruitment. The Panchayat Raj Secretary, Grade-I can be filled up only by promotion from the lower category. In the said process the respondent once again committed grave mistake and making appointment directly only on the ground that the Executive Officer Grade-II merged with Panchayat Secretary Grade-I. The petitioner having no option, joined on 18.01.2014 and filed O.A. No. 2413 of 2015 before the Tribunal contending that not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment to Group II post is illegal. While pending said O.A. a Memo dated 23.02.2015 was handed over to the counsel for the petitioner, through which the claim of the petitioner seems to have been rejected and the same was never communicated to the petitioner, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed. 4. While pending said O.A. a Memo dated 23.02.2015 was handed over to the counsel for the petitioner, through which the claim of the petitioner seems to have been rejected and the same was never communicated to the petitioner, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed. 4. Per contra, the 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit, denying all material averments made in the writ petition and mainly contended that the post of Executive Officer Grade-II was re-designated/re-grouped as Panchayat Secretary, Grade-I in the year 2010 itself, in the Notification it was mentioned as Executive Office Grade-II. Considering the same, appointment orders were issued to the petitioners and other selected candidates appointing them as Panchayat Secretary-I, which was re-grouped with three categories viz., Executive Officer Grade-I, Executive Officer Grade-II and Village Development Officer Grade-I. The Executive Officer Grade-II is re-grouped and designated as Executive Officer Grade-I. After careful examination of the APPSC letter, appointment orders were issued to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 28.12.2013 as Panchayat Secretary Grade-I, which is equivalent to the Officer Grade-II in all respects. The petitioner has filed O.A. No. 2413 of 2015, while pending the same, the 2nd respondent rejected the case of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 23.02.2015. assailing the same after lapse of two years filed O.A. No. 969 of 2019 and the same was dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Aggrieved by the same, W.P. No. 10775 of 2019 filed and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court directed the Tribunal to number the O.A. However, in view of closer of the Tribunal has filed writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 23.02.2015, though the petitioner has knowledge about passing rejection order even by 29.06.2017, but he did not file any appeal. Without availing the alternative remedy available to him as per the rules, approached this Court and seeking relief. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Perused the record. 6. The Public Service Commission issued Group-II Services Notification No. 39/2011, dated 29.12.2011 under various categories Executive and Non Executive posts. The petitioner has provisionally selected as per Roster Point No. 52/8 vide Registration No. 22546306 and opted Post Code No. 27. As per selection notification the Registration number of the petitioner is shown at S. No. 144 in Selection zone No. 2. The petitioner has provisionally selected as per Roster Point No. 52/8 vide Registration No. 22546306 and opted Post Code No. 27. As per selection notification the Registration number of the petitioner is shown at S. No. 144 in Selection zone No. 2. While pending O.A. No. 2413 of 2015, rejection order has been passed vide Memo23.02.2015 by the 2nd respondent and that the O.A. has been closed with a liberty to challenge the same. Though there is some delay in filing the O.A. which was rejected on the ground of delay. Therefore W.P. No. 10775 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court allowed with a direction to the Tribunal to number the O.A. Meantime, the Tribunal closed. Therefore, the present writ petition came to be filed. 7. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner has applied the Notification No. 39 of 2011, dated 29.12.2011 for Group II post and he was provisionally selected and given options to the post Code No. 27 i.e. Executive Officer Grade-II in A.P. Panchayat Raj Department. Subsequently at the intervention of Public Service Commission and as per G.O.Ms. No. 84, the post of Executive Officer Grade-II has been merged with Panchayat Secretary Grade- I and issued proceedings to the petitioner to appoint him as Panchayat Secretary Grade-I vide proceedings dated 28.12.2013, but without any option, the petitioner has joined as Panchayat Secretary Grade-I, which is illegal and arbitrary and that this writ petition came to be filed to challenge the inaction on the part of the respondents in not placing the petitioner in Executive Officer Grade-II. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the Executive Officer Grade-II is merged with Panchayat Secretary Grade-I, which is equitant in all respects in view of G.O.Ms. No. 81, dated 20.02.2010 and G.O.Ms. No. 84, dated 24.02.2010. The respondents have not given proper answer with regard to other selected candidates, who were selected along with the petitioner and their positions in its counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that other candidates who are selected has joined duties as Executive Officer Grade-II as per Notification, but in the case of the petitioner, the respondents committed grave error and latches. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that other candidates who are selected has joined duties as Executive Officer Grade-II as per Notification, but in the case of the petitioner, the respondents committed grave error and latches. It is further argued that the respondents for the sake of their convenience merged the Executive Officer Grade-II with Panchayat Secretary Grade-I and posted him saying that both the posts are equal and forced him to report duty. Accordingly, the petitioner has joined as Panchayat Secretary Grade-I. 9. No doubt, as per record, the petitioner has selected and mentioned the post of Executive Officer Grade-II. It is the duty of the respondents to scrutinize his eligibility and place him in that post only without interpreting the G.O.Ms. Nos. 81 and 84, which are not applied for the similar candidates, who were selected along with the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner questioned the same as it is illegal and arbitrary. The respondent has committed grave error in not posting the petitioner as Executive Officer Grade-II as per his selection without valid reasons is depict on the face of record. The respondents should get clarification before issuing notification with regard to post position with Public Service Commission if so required, but after selection, the respondents drawn wrong attention in the case of the petitioner, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. In view of acts committed by the respondents, the petitioner approached the Tribunal and finally this Court since 2015 and suffered huge loss. 10. Under the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner is eligible to the post of Executive Officer Grade-II as per Notification 39 of 2011, dated 29.12.2011 and hence the impugned Memo dated 23.02.2015 is declared as illegal, arbitrary and same is hereby set aside. It is further directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Executive Officer Grade-II in the Panchayat Raj Department, with all consequential service benefits, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.