Mohd Fazal Ali vs Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad

V. ESWARAIAH, J.—This petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar (Administration), High Court of Andhra Pradesh to grant permission to him to go over to foreign countries for getting private employment for a period of 4 1/2,, years as contemplated in G.O. Ms. No.214, Finance and Planning (FW.FRI) Department, dated 3-9-1996 by cancelling the order in ROC No.200 of 1998- C1 (3) dated 24-3-1998.

The petitioner submits that he has joined as Attender in the Unit of District Judge, Nalgonda on 22-2-1988. The post of the Attender is governed by the AP Last Grade Service Rules. He is not entitled for automatic promotion and in the opinion of the appointing authority any employee is fit for promotion such person will be appointed to a higher post by transfer. There is no promotional channel to the post of Attender. The Attender in the Judicial Department is also a Government Servant. No Government Servant shall apply for private employment without having previously obtained permission in writing from the appointing authority in respect of the post, which he is holding. The Government Servants filed several representations before the Government for grant of extraordinary leave with permission to take-up employment in foreign countries. Accordingly, the Government have decide to follow a uniform liberal policy in the matter of permitting the Government Servants irrespective of categories to which they belong i.e., technical/non-technical or clerical to secure and accept jobs abroad, passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.214, Finance and Employment (FW.FR.I) Department, dated 3-9-1996 referred in Para 5 (i) to (xi) of the said G.O. In terms of the aforesaid Government Order, the petitioner filed an application to the District Judge, Nalgonda, seeking permission to take up employment abroad for a period of 4 1/2 years taking extraordinary leave and the District Judge had forwarded the same vide his letter Dis.No.5182 dated 24-6-1997 to the 1st respondent, for grant of permission and the said application of the petitioner was rejected by the 1st respondent in Roc No.200-90C-I(3) dated 24-3-1998. Questioning the said rejection, the petitioner filed this writ petition to direct the 1st respondent to grant permission to him in terms of the said Government Order.

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that when the technical job holders such as, Doctors, Engineers and specially skilled persons are permitted to take extraordinary leave, there is no justification on the part of the 1st respondent to reject his application without assigning any reason. The relevant portion of the G.O. is reproduced below:

"5. Government after careful examination, have decided to follow a uniform liberal policy in the matter of permitting Government servants irrespective of categories to which they belong i.e., technical/non-technical or clerical to secure and accept jobs abroad and pass the following orders in supersession of the similar orders issued in the reference 3rd read above:

(i) Government employees desirous of seeking jobs abroad, irrespective of categories to which they belong technical, non-technical or clerical be permitted to apply and secure employment abroad without applying for voluntary retirement or resigning from service. However, such of those scarce categories of staff/officers whose services are considered essential to this Government shall not be permitted to secure job abroad.

(ii) to (ix)......................"

From bare reading of this condition in the G.O. it becomes abundantly clear that the Government has almost conferred a right on Government servants to take up services in foreign countries. The restrictions on exercise of this right are given in the G.O. itself. The respondents have not been able to tell us as to under which restriction the case of the petitioner comes. He is an attender and it cannot be said that his services care essential to the Government and therefore he cannot be permitted to go abroad. We feel that, under the G.O. the petitioner as a matter of right could seek extraordinary leave for 4 1/2 years to take up a job in foreign country.

It is not the case of the respondent that the services of the petitioner are indispensable and there is dearth of manpower. There cannot be any loss or prejudice that would be caused to the respondents if the petitioner takes extra-ordinary leave. If the petitioner takes extra-ordinary leave and if he is able to secure a better job in the foreign countries, he will be making a way for providing a job to another unemployed. If there is no surplus staff in the Judicial Department and if the petitioner is not in surplus pool and the post of the Attender is not a technical or skilled post, the respondents can take services of any unemployed youth either on contingency or on temporary basis and no harm would be caused even if the petitioner joins to his duty after 4 1/2 years. In case the petitioner settles down in the foreign countries, he will be making a way for providing employment to the unemployed youth in his place. When the Government is spending huge amounts on the Doctors and Engineers and permitting them to go abroad, there cannot be any justification in rejecting the case of the petitioner, and thus, he submits that the action of the respondents is discriminatory in not extending the benefit of the said Government Order.

We, therefore, do not see any justification in rejecting the request of the petitioner for availing the extraordinary leave benefit for seeking a job abroad as contemplated in G.O. Ms. No.214, Finance and Planning (FW.FR.I) Department, dated 3-9-1996 and accordingly the impugned order is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the said G.O. and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.