AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the Proceedings No.El/1223-A/98-1, dated 26-11-1999 on the file of the 1st respondent and seek to set aside the same and consequently seek a direction to the 1st respondent to continue the petitioners as Sub-Registrars, Grade II with all benefits and pass such other orders in the circumstances of the case.
According to the petitioners, the first petitioner was initially appointed as Sharaff in the year 1982, later promoted to the posts of Junior Assistant and Senior Assistant in the years 1985 and 1990 respectively. He was further promoted to the post of Sub-Registrar, Grade II in the year 1995 in the panel vacancy. The second petitioner was initially appointed as temporary section writer in the year 1979 and promoted to the posts of Junior Assistant and Senior Assistants in the years 1990 and 1992 respectively. He was promoted to the post of Sub-Registrar, Grade IT in the backlog vacancy reserved for Schedule Caste candidates in the year 1998. The third petitioner was initially appointed as section writer in the year 1975 and later promoted to the posts of Junior Assistant and Senior Assistant in the years 1982 and 1992 respectively. He was further promoted to the post of Sub-Registrar, Grade II in the backlog vacancy in the year 1997. Thus all these petitioners have been working presently as Sub-Registrars, Grade II, on being promoted in the panel/backlog vacancies.
Their main grievance is that by Proceedings No.E1/1223/A/98-1, dated 26-11-1999, the first respondent reverted them as Senior Assistants on the premise that they are excessive to the quota reserved for Schedule Caste candidates and also relying on a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short APAT) in OA No.3659 of 1996. All the petitioners immediately moved the APAT by way of presenting OA No.7099 of 1999 assailing the order of their reversion issued by the 1st respondent on various grounds. The petitioners also sought interim suspension of the order issued by the 1st respondent pending disposal of the OA. However, the APAT disposed of the OA with the following direction:
"In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made, as the reversion orders have been effected in pursuance of the judgment in OA No.3659 of 1996, dated 22-7-1998 and as the un-official respondents who have been promoted, have joined duties, the applicants are not entitled for any interim relief of suspension of the impugned orders. As it is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that there are still some vacancies in Schedule Caste quota, the official respondents are directed to consider the claims of the applicants in case there are backlog vacancies in Schedule Caste category as per the cadre strength. The OA is disposed off accordingly.
It is this decision, which is assailed before us on various grounds."
We have heard Shri Tarakam, learned senior Counsel appearing along with Sri J. Satyaprasad, for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services II for the 1st respondent and also Shri J.R. Manohar Rao, learned Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 (un-official respondents).
It is submitted by Shri Tarakam, learned senior Counsel, on behalf of the petitioners that these three writ petitioners were initially appointed in various categories and later were promoted to the post of Sub-Registrar, Grade II, in the years 1995, 1998 and 1997 respectively as per the roster, the vacancies meant for the candidates from Schedule Caste. The Counsel stated that the first petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub-Registrar, Grade II in the year 1995 in the panel vacancy while the petitioners 2 and 3 were promoted to the post of Sub-Registrar, Grade II in the years 1998 and 1997 respectively in the backlog vacancies meant for Schedule Caste candidates as per the roster. The learned Counsel stated that the order passed by the first respondent in Proceedings No.E1/1223-A/98-1, dated 26-11-1999 reverting these petitioners is presumably on the basis of a decision rendered by the APAT in OA No.3659 of 1996 and also on the basis of a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, . The Counsel stated that when these petitioners were not parties to the decision rendered by the APAT in OA No.3659 of 1996, without even affording an opportunity by the 1st respondent these petitioners were reverted though they have been promoted in substantial vacancies reserved for Schedule Caste candidates. The learned Counsel made efforts to convince us that the ratio laid down in the decision of Supreme Court (supra) has no application at all to the facts of this case and that the 1st respondent on certain surmises reverted the petitioners without even following the procedure as required under the Rules and stated that the order of the 1st respondent reverting the petitioners through the proceedings dated 26-11-1999 is per se illegal and cannot be sustained.
The learned Counsel further submitted that when these factors were urged before the APAT, the learned APAT on the basis of oral representations made by the learned Government Pleader representing the 1st respondent and the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents before the Tribunal that the contesting respondents have already taken charge by virtue of promotions given to them by the 1st respondent as Sub-Registrars, Grade II on the same day i.e., 26-11-1999, in the resultant vacancies caused on account of the reversion of these petitioners and on the learned Government Pleader making an oral submission that the posts Held by these petitioners are excessive, over and above the quota reserved for Schedule Caste candidates, disposed of the OA requiring the 1st respondent to consider the claims of the petitioners in case if there are any backlog vacancies in the category reserved for Schedule Caste candidates. The learned senior Counsel further stated that the order of the APAT is not judicious and the APAT without applying its mind erroneously passed the order which caused grave injustice to these petitioners and stated that the order of the APAT in OA No.7099 of 1999 has to be set aside and consequently to quash the order of the 1st respondent in proceedings dated 26-11-1999 reverting these petitioners, declaring as void ab initio.
The learned Government Pleader for Services II appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent, however, justified the order of the 1st respondent on the ground that the reversion has been made in terms of Rule 22 of State and Subordinate Service Rules (for short Rules) as the 1st respondent was satisfied that these three petitioners have been given promotion excessive to the quota reserved for Schedule Caste candidates. Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondents 2 to 4, stated that there is no illegality in the order passed by the 1st respondent, giving promotion to the respondents 2 to 4 in this writ petition and appointing them as sub- registrars, Grade II in the resultant vacancies, consequent upon the reversion of the petitioners in this writ petition and stated that the procedure followed by the 1st respondent is in accordance with the rules and no interference is required.
During the course of hearing the writ petition, we sought assistance of Shri M Panduranga Rao, one of the senior Counsel of this Court, to assist us as amlcus curiae and the Registry was directed to furnish relevant material to him. The learned amicus curiae volunteers to assist us in this case. According to him, all these three petitioners were originally included in the year 1995 panel and promoted as Sub-Registrars, Grade II in the years 1995, 1998 and 1997 respectively. The learned amicus curiae stated that when once the names of these three petitioners were included in the panel, their inclusion is deemed to be regular. He further stated that as per Rule 23 of the Rules, the order of appointment of a member of a service is revisible within a period of six months or thereafter, provided the affected party is given a fair opportunity of being heard on that aspect. He further stated that admittedly, these three petitioners were promoted in the years 1995, 1998 and 1997 respectively and the order of their reversion issued by the 1st respondent is only on 26-11-1999. That means, in the case of the 1st petitioner, his promotion is affected after four years of his promotion, in the case of second petitioner, his promotion is meddled with after an year of his promotion and in the case of the third petitioner, his promotion is meddled with after two years of his promotion. This attempt is clearly in violation of Rule 23 of the'' Rules. Elaborating his submission, the learned amicus curiae has also taken us to Rule 25 of the Rules. Laying emphasis on Rule 25, the learned amicus curiae stated that the State Government may, in its motion or otherwise, review any original order passed promoting a member of a service or class, to a higher post, the persons likely to be affected shall be given an opportunity of making a representation before reviewing their promotions. In this case, according to the learned amicus curiae, there is a clear violation of Rules 23 and 25 of the Rules. He further submitted that if the authority desired to review the promotions made in favour of these petitioners, they must necessarily constitute a review DPC and such review DPC is also entitled to have a fresh look in the matter, subject to following the Rules. The learned amicus curiae has taken us to the following decisions:
T. Devadasan Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Another, , R.K. Sabharwal and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, , Jatinder Pal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, , Ram Ujarey v. Union of India 1999(1) SLR 76.
While laying emphasis on the ratio laid in the decisions, the learned amicus curiae submitted that the order of the 1st respondent is contrary to rule of law and such an order passed by the 1 st respondent, on any account is not justifiable. He also submitted that even in the counter filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent is unable to show the roster point reserved for Schedule Caste candidates and stated that on all counts the impugned orders is liable to be set aside.
During the course of hearing the writ petition, the learned Government Pleader for Services II placed before us few records relating to the maintenance of roster points of Zone I and also abstract of statement indicating roster points. We are unable to infer from the registers that the roster points are properly maintained as they do not bear any signature of Competent Authority or authentically indicate the roster points meant for various categories. The learned senior Counsel, Shri Tarakam, has tried to find fault in the abstracted statements placed before this Court, contending that though on left hand side, against the names, indicated as belong to "Schedule Caste Category", but in the right hand side column, correction has been made which originally shown as ''OC'', to be indicating as ''SC''. The learned senior Counsel has also tried to take us to the other defects apparent in the statements placed before this Court and stated that the 1st respondent is trying to mislead the Court by producing false records.
Probably, we may say, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the absence of factual position being placed before us, it would be very difficult for us to give a clear finding whether the 1st respondent has shown proper roster points relating to each category. However, without going into that controversy, from the submissions made by the learned amicus curiae, it looks to us, the 1st respondent has not followed the procedure contemplated under Rules 23 and 25 of State and Subordinate Service Rules, inasmuch as when certain benefits conferred on a member of a service, when sought to be withdrawn, they are entitled to an opportunity in the matter. Rule 23 of the Rules make it clear that the order of appointment given to a member of a service to a higher post could be withdrawn or revised while affording an opportunity to the affected party, likewise Rule 25 of the Rules empowers, the State Government on its motion or otherwise to review any original order promoting a member of a service to a higher post, subject to affording an opportunity to the affected party. The 1st respondent passed the order of reversion of the petitioners only on the basis of a judgment of the APAT in OA No.3659 of 1996 and in the light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court (cited supra). This order, in our view, is in clear violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of the rules prescribed under the State and Subordinate Service Rules as none of these petitioners were parties before the Tribunal in OA No.3659 of 1996 nor the 1st respondent has made efforts to examine whether the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Sabharwal''s case (supra) could be made applicable to the facts of this case. Added to this, the learned APAT, before whom the order of reversion issued by the 1 st respondent against these petition was questioned in the OA No.7099 of 1999, failed to decide the matter on merits, but disposed of the matter on the basis of the oral representations made by the Government Pleader and the Counsel for the un-official respondents, without going into the merits of the contentions. Looking this matter from these aspects, we are convinced, the order of the APAT in OA No.7099 of 1999 dated 30-11-1999 cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. Consequently, we declare that the order passed by the 1st respondent in Proceedings No,El/1223-A/98-l, dated 26-11-1999 reverting these petitioners from the post of Sub-Registrar, Grade-II, and giving promotions to the un-official respondents 2 to 4 in their place is in clear terms of violation of Rules 23 and 25 of the Rules. Accordingly, the order passed by the 1st respondent in Proceedings No.E1/1223-A/ 98-1, dated 26-11-1999, reverting the petitioners, is set aside and the consequential order promoting the respondents 2 to 4 posting them in the places of the petitioners shall also stand quashed. The petitioners are entitled to continuance in the post of Sub-Registrar, Grade II.
The writ petition is allowed. No costs.
We place on record our deep appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri M. Panduranga Rao, learned amicus curiae.