AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sivaraman Nair, J.—This appeal arises from the Judgment in Writ Petition No. 1769/1989. That Writ Petition was filed by respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal. The other respondents herein are the A.P. State Warehousing Corporation (R. 4) and the State of A.P. represented by its Secretary (Marketing) (R. 5).
The appellant and respondents 1 to 3 commenced service under the 4th respondent-corporation as Warehouse Managers II. Previous service, if any, rendered by them in the Corporation is not relevant for our present purpose. From Warehouse Manager, Grade-II, all of them were promoted to the next higher post of Warehouse Manager, Grade-I, by order dt. 26-6-74 with effect from 1-7-74. In that order, respondents 1 to 3 were assigned rank numbers 1 to 3 whereas the appellant was ranked as No. 6. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 3 and the appellant were appointed as Regional Managers. The appellant was occupying a corresponding position of Regional Manager in the Head Office. By an order dt. 31-3-87 the posts occupied by respondents 1 to 3 were upgraded as Senior Regional Managers in a higher scale of pay. That was however subject to the approval of the Government. In its order dt. 16-5-88, Government directed the Corporation to defer upgradation of the posts. The 4th respondent passed a consequential order dt. 21-7-88 reverting respondents 1 to 3 to the posts of Regional Managers. They challenged the Government Order as also the consequential reversions, in W.P. No. 1769/89. One of the contentions which they had raised was that the Government had no power to refuse to approve the proposal of the Corporation to upgrade the existing posts. In the mean time, the appellant had been appointed as Manager (Business) in-charge with effect from 13-10-1988. That is a post corresponding to the Senior Regional Managers.
The chronology of events mentioned above indicates that respondents 1 to 3 who are seniors had the advantage of earlier ranking and earlier promotion whenever occasion arose for advancement in service. They got promotion to the post of Senior Regional Managers on 31-3-1987 whereas the appellant was put in charge of the corresponding post on 13-10-1988.
In Writ Petition No. 1769/89 our learned brother Jagannadha Raju, held that the Government had no power under any provision of the Warehousing Corporations Act, the rules or the regulations, to reject a proposal relating to upgradation of an existing post. Arguments were addressed on the basis of Section 42(2) of the Warehousing Corporations Act. The learned single Judge held that no provision of the Act, much less Section 42(2) precluded the Corporation from creating posts or classification of employees. It was on that basis that he held that the order of the Government deferring the proposal for upgradation of three posts of Regional managers into Senior Regional managers and the consequential reversion of respondents 1 to 3, was bad.
The present appellant sought leave for filing this appeal. He was a stranger to the proceedings. The in-charge arrangement whereby he was appointed as Manager (Business) on 13-10-1988 was sought to be terminated as a consequence of the judgment in W.P. 1769/89. We felt that if his reversion was directly consequential upon the judgment in the above writ petition, he may be a person interested and therefore entitled to file an appeal against that judgment, even though he was not a party in the writ petition.
Sri. M.S.K. Sastry, counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submits that admittedly the appellant is junior to respondents 1 to 3 in the category of Warehouse Managers Grade-I and Regional Managers. He also submits that in the category of Senior Regional Manager, respondents were promoted earlier than the petitioner on 31-3-87, whereas the appellant was placed in-charge of the corresponding post of Manager (Business) only later, on 13-10-1988. He submits that even irrespective of the judgment which is impugned in this appeal, respondents 1 to 3 are entitled to preference in the matter of any advancement in service as against the appellant. He also submits that the learned single Judge was right in holding that the Government had no power to refuse approval for upgradation of posts of Regional Managers as senior Regional Managers.
Our attention was invited to Regulation 4 of the A.P. State Warehousing Corporation Employees Regulations to the following effect:
"4. Classification of Employees:
The employees of the Corporation shall be classified as follows: Class-1:- Secretary, Inspector & Storage Officer, Construction Engineer, Inspecting Accountant, Storage Assistant, Regional Inspection Officer, Warehouse Manager, Gr.I and Warehouse Manager, Gr. II and such other posts as may be created by the Board from time to time."
These Regulations were framed in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 42(2) of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 and with the previous sanction of the government of Andhra Pradesh. Obviously therefore the State Government had approved the classification of employees to be made by the Corporation in respect of the specified posts and such other posts as may be created by the Board from time to time. We are of the opinion that upgradation of three out of the 18 posts of Regional Managers as Senior Regional Managers was within the comprehension of the powers of the Corporation under Regulation 4 (Class-I Posts) of the employees regulations. We are also of the opinion that it is not necessary to refer to other provisions of the Warehousing Corporations Act, to ascertain whether the Corporation has to approach the Government each time it adds to Class-I posts and seek its approval of upgradation of posts.
Counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that the observations contained in the judgment under appeal are likely to be taken to give an unrestricted freedom to the Corporation even to transgress the provisions of the State Warehousing Corporations Act. As we understand the judgment, it dealt only with the specific point which was raised before the learned Single Judge. All observations contained in the judgment were confined only to the question whether it was competent for the State Warehousing Corporation to upgrade some of die posts under it in exercise of the power which it specifically had under Regulation-4 of the State Warehousing Corporation Employees Regulations. We know that there are provisions in the Warehousing Corporations Act providing for considerable amount of control by the State Government which owns 50% of its share capital in the matter of policy, finances, accounts audits etc. In matters of policy, the State Government is entitled to issue directions to the Corporation; and the Corporation is bound to comply with the same. Finances of the Corporation have to be sanctioned by the State Government on the basis of statement of finances; the Corporation is subject to strict budgetary and audit control. It cannot transgress the limits of such allocations. The Corporation is not entitled to subvert the policy of the State Government or its financial allocations. Its autonomy is confirmed to the regions which are specifically delineated by the provisions under the Act, Rules and the Regulations.
If we understand the judgment in this restricted sense there is no basis for any apprehension that the corporation is likely to exceed the limits set by statutory restrictions.
As far as the case of the appellant is concerned, we have to observe that, he being junior to respondents 1 to 3 is not entitled to insist mat he shall be continued in the post of Manager (Business) of which he was put in change on 13-10-1988 some time after respondents 1 to 3 were appointed in the equivalent posts as senior Regional Managers, pursuant to the decision of the Board dt. 31-3-87. Even if we allow the Writ Appeal, his seniority in the feeder category of Regional Managers will not be altered. If it is not so altered, he will not be entitled to any effective relief in the matter of his retention in the post of Manager (Business) which he had been holding for some time.
An alternative submission of counsel for the appellant is that the post of Manager (Business) or the corresponding post of Senior Regional Manager being a selection post, appellant also ought to have been considered for selection irrespective of his rank. In the light of what we have stated above, it is not necessary for us to consider this submission in any greater detail except to note that in-charge arrangements are matters of expediency and administrative exigencies and do not give rise to any right in any person to claim preference for continuance in the post. If the post is proposed to be filled up in a regular manner, and if it is a selection post, other considerations may perhaps arise.
In this view, the appellant is not entitled to any relief against respondents 1 to 3 in this Appeal. The Writ Appeal has to be and is therefore dismissed. We however make it clear that we have dealt with the factual details of the controversy only for the limited purpose of appreciating points arising for consideration in this appeal. We make it further clear that none of our observations will in any manner preclude the appellant from seeking necessary reliefs in respect of any matter in other appropriate proceedings. There will be no order as to costs.