AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Respondents 7 to 9 in W.P.No.36790 of 2016 are the petitioners in W.P.No.40848 of 2016 and common questions of fact and law arise for
consideration in these two Writ Petitions and so they are being disposed of by this common order.
The petitioners in W.P.No.36790 of 2016 were appointed to work in the Government Pleaders office in the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh as Junior Assistant and Office Subordinates respectively prior to the bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh into the new State
of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 02.06.2014 under the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014.
The petitioners in W.P.No.36790 of 2016 claim to be natives of the State of Telangana.
On the bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, the office of the Government Pleaders, High Court was also bifurcated into two
relating to the successor States. Proceedings No.80/Admn.1/2014 dt.02.06.2014 was issued by the Administrator of the Government Pleaders office,
High Court Buildings, Hyderabad apportioning the posts of Junior Assistants and Office Subordinates in the ratio of 58.42 : 41.68 between the
residuary State of Andhra Pradesh and the new State of Telangana; and in the said proceedings, the 1st petitioner in W.P.No.36790 of 2016, who was
Junior Assistant, was allocated to the State of Telangana, and petitioners 2, 3 and 4, who were in the cadre of Office Subordinates, were also
allocated to the State of Telangana. This provisional allotment was also approved by the Government of Telangana by issuing G.O.Rt.No.410, Law
(E.II/2) Department, dt.21.05.2015.
But suddenly, the State of Telangana issued proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.663, Law (E.II/2) Department, dt.26.10.2016 directing re-allotment of the
1st petitioner, who was Junior Assistant, on the basis of his age / date of birth to the State of Andhra Pradesh, and petitioners 2 to 4 also to the State
of Andhra Pradesh allegedly taking into consideration their nativity, length of service, etc., as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.248, General Administration
(SR) Department, dt.01.06.2014.
Thus, the petitioners in W.P.No.36790 of 2016, though natives of the State of Telangana, were suddenly allotted to the office of the Government
Pleaders of the State of Andhra Pradesh, and the Administrator of the Government Pleaders office of the State of Telangana was directed to relieve
them so that they can join in the office of the Government Pleaders in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
This is questioned by the petitioners in W.P.No.36790 of 2016 on the ground that the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued
G.O.Ms.No.248, General Administration (SR) Department, dt.01.06.2014 prescribing the criteria for allocation of the personnel working on contract
basis between the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh; that in the said G.O., certain criteria were laid down for such
allocation; in particular it was prescribed in Clause 2(ii) that the nativity of the person having contractual relationship with the Government and the
length of contractual relationship shall be considered as the principal criteria for apportionment, and in Clause 2(iv), it was also mentioned that the
Secretary / HoD concerned are authorized to issue orders accordingly, subject to approval by the successor Governments; and in the case of the 1st
petitioner in W.P.No.36790 of 2016, the age of the employee was not one of the criteria prescribed for allocation and on that basis he could not have
been re-allotted by the State of Telangana to the State of Andhra Pradesh; and in the case of petitioners 2 to 4 in W.P.No.36790 of 2016, there was
no approval of the State of Andhra Pradesh ( which is the successor Government) for the decision to make re-allotment of petitioners 2 to 4, who
were earlier allotted to the State of Telangana on 02.06.2014, to the State of Andhra Pradesh vide proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.663 dt.26.10.2016; and
unilaterally the State of Telangana cannot make the re-allotment without the consent of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Accepting prima facie these contentions, on 27.10.2016 in W.P.M.P.No.45312 of 2016 in W.P.No.36790 of 2016, interim suspension of the
proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.663 dt.26.10.2016 was granted.
In the meantime, the petitioners in W.P.No.40848 of 2016 had filed the said Writ Petition stating that they should be allotted to the State of
Telangana as per G.O.Ms.No.248, General Administration (SR) Department, dt.01.06.2014; and contending that Memo No.151/TL.SP/E.II/2016
dt.22.04.2016 was issued by the Law Department of the Government of Telangana proposing for re-allotment, and requesting the Advocate General,
who was the Head of the Department, to grant approval, if not already obtained; and the consequential proceedings bearing the same reference issued
on 22.04.2016 to re-allot the petitioners in W.P.No.40848 of 2016, who were working as Office Subordinates, to the State of Telangana while
simultaneously re-allotting petitioners 2, 3 and 4 in W.P.No.36790 of 2016 to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Subsequently I.A.No.3 of 2016 was filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.40848 of 2016 in W.P.No.36790 of 2016 to implead themselves as
respondents 7 to 9 in W.P.No.36790 of 2016 and the said Application was ordered on 31.03.2021.
Smt. K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel filed appearance for respondents 7 to 9 in W.P.No.36790 of 2016 and she also appeared for them in
W.P.No.40848 of 2016.
I.A.No.1 of 2018 filed by respondents 7 to 9 in G.O.Rt.No.410, Law (E.II/2) Department, dt.21.05.2015 to vacate the order dt.27.10.2016 in
I.A.No.2 of 2016 in W.P.36790 of 2016.
The State Governments of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh also filed counter affidavits and were represented by Government Pleader for
Services-III (Telangana) and Sri P.Govind Reddy, Special Counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Sri P.Govind Reddy, Special Counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh submitted that it was specifically provided in Clause 2(iv) of the Guidelines
framed vide G.O.Ms.No.248, General Administration (SR) Department, dt.01.06.2014 that the Secretary / HoD concerned was authorized to issue
orders, subject to approval by the successor Governments; that G.O.Rt.No.663, Law (E.II/2) Department, dt.26.10.2016 was issued by the
Government of Telangana modifying the orders passed in G.O.Rt.No.410, Law (E.II/2) Department, dt.21.05.2015; but prior to making of such re-
allotment, the consent of the successor Government of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh had not been obtained and so G.O.Rt.No.663
dt.26.10.2016 therefore cannot have any force.
He also stated that the requirement of age of the employee, which was introduced in the case of the 1st petitioner in W.P.No.36790 of 2016, was
not prescribed in the said G.O.Ms.No.248, General Administration (SR) Department, dt.01.06.2014, and it was not open to the State of Telangana to
introduce such a new criteria without the consent of the successor Government of Andhra Pradesh.
Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the State of Telangana could not explain how the State of Telangana could introduce the
requirement of age which has not been prescribed in the said G.O.Ms.No.248 dt.01.06.2014 and how it could then be applied to the 1st petitioner in
W.P.No.36790 of 2016.
She however sought to sustain the proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.663 dt.26.10.2016 contending that certain provisions of Fundamental Rules, which
provided for the length of service to be taken into account, were taken considered while making the re-allotment in G.O.Rt.No.663 dt.26.10.2016.
In our considered opinion, the question of considering Fundamental Rules for the purpose of re-allotment does not arise because the allotment / re-
allotment is being done on account of the bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh into the new State of Telangana and the residuary
State of Andhra Pradesh. Such an event is an extraordinary situation and such re-allotment, if any, can only be done if the other successor State, i.e.,
the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh, gives consent for the same. Unilaterally the State of Telangana could not have made any re-allotment by
introducing new criteria which have not been agreed upon and without the consent to such re-allotment given by the residuary State of Andhra
Pradesh.
That apart, it is the contention of the petitioners in W.P.No.36790 of 2016 that the 7th respondent in the said Writ Petition / 1st petitioner in
W.P.No.40848 of 2016 had in fact resigned on 01.03.2019, which is also corroborated by Sri P.Govind Reddy, Special Counsel for the State of
Andhra Pradesh.
Though Smt. P. Laxmi, the 7th respondent in W.P.No.36790 of 2016 / 1st petitioner in W.P.No.40848 of 2016, states that her resignation was not
accepted by the State of Andhra Pradesh, the fact remains that the said party had abandoned her job on 01.03.2019 and is therefore no longer to be
considered for grant of any relief.
It is also the contention of the counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.36790 of 2016 that the 9th respondent in the said Writ Petition by name P.Das
is not interested in coming back to the State of Telangana from the State of Andhra Pradesh since he had shifted along with his family and has a
permanent establishment there.
But the Special Counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh stated that the services of P. Das were terminated on 01.04.2021 on account of his
involvement in a criminal case in Crime No.90 of 2021 dt.28.03.2021 under Sections 498A and 306 IPC on the file of Tulluru Police Station.
Therefore, no relief can also be granted to the said party.
As regards J. Veeraiah, the 8th respondent in W.P.No.36790 of 2016, who is the 2nd petitioner in W.P.No.40848 of 2016, even though he may
wish to be allotted to the State of Telangana, since there is no consent of the State of Andhra Pradesh for such re-allotment, it is not possible to grant
him any relief either.
Accordingly, W.P.No.36790 of 2016 is allowed and G.O.Rt.No.663 dt.26.10.2016 issued by the 1st respondent in the said Writ Petition is set aside
and a consequential direction is issued to respondents 1 and 2 therein to continue the petitioners in accordance with G.O.Rt.No.410, Law (E.II/2)
Department dt.21.05.2015 in the office of the Government Pleaders of the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad; I.A.No.1 of 2018
filed by respondents 7 to 9 in W.P.No.36790 of 2016 to vacate the order dt.27.10.2016 in I.A.No.2 of 2016 in W.P.36790 of 2016 is dismissed; and
W.P.No.40848 of 2016 is also dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed. No costs.