Govt. of A. P. vs Y. Surender Reddy

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(SC) 541

2006(4) Supreme 582
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
AR. Lakshmanan and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Government of A.P. & Anr.—Appellants
versus
Y. Surender Reddy—Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7938 of 2004
Decided on 25-5-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondent : K.V. Vishwanathan, D. Bharat Kumar, Anand, Abhijit Sengupta, Advocates.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985—Section 19—Respondent an employee of APSCRIC, filed an application to direct appellant to consider his case for appointment of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector—Claim was based on G.O. dt. 14-12-1995 and on fact that similarly situated employees were considered for appointment—Tribunal dismissed application as not maintainable holding that respondent was employee of Corporation and Corporation employee did not come within purview of the Act—High Court in writ petition did not go into maintainability of O.A. and passed impugned order directing appellant to consider case of petitioner for sponsoring his name—Appeal—Contempt petition filed by petitioner was disposed of and petitioner filed O.A.—Tribunal allowed O.A. but that order was never challenged—Impugned order worked out with passing of order by State Govt. and it stood superseded by Tribunal’s order in subsequent O.A.—Since said order of Tribunal had not been challenged, in interest of justice, appellant permitted to challenge that order by filing writ—Appellant to file writ within a month and writ to be decided by High Court on merits.
Held : In our view, in the absence of the challenge to the judgment dated 26.5.2004 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3200/2004, relief cannot be granted to the appellants in the present appeal. The impugned order dated 8.8.2003 has worked itself out with the passing of the order dated 23.12.2003 by the State Government. That order stands superseded in view of the Tribunal’s order dated 26.5.2004 in O.A. No. 3200 of 2004. The learned counsel for the appellant also raised the contention before this Court in regard to the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Since the said order has not been challenged, we now permit the appellants, in the interest of justice, to challenge the order of the Tribunal dated 26.5.2004 in O.A. No. 3200 of 2004 before the High Court. This apart, the Special Leave Petition filed by the appellants is also pending before this Court. Even though the order was passed on 26.5.2004, the same could not be challenged because of the pendency of the appeal in this Court. Therefore, the time taken by the appellants to file this appeal has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation, if any. The appellants may file a writ petition questioning the correctness of the order dated 26.5.2004, if they so desire. If such a writ petition is filed within one month from today, the same shall be entertained and disposed of by the High Court on merits and in accordance with law.(Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—The above appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 8.8.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 14645 of 2000 whereby the High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the respondent herein with a direction that the Surplus Manpower Cell in Finance Department shall consider the case of the writ petitioner for sponsoring his name to the Transport Commissioner for being appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector pending any modifications to the Rules, if required. The High Court also directed that this exercise shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

2. We have heard Mrs. Bharti Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vishwanathan, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Before proceeding to consider the rival submissions, it is necessary to set out certain background facts of this case.

4. The respondent herein filed the application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad praying for a direction to the appellant to consider his case for appointment of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. At that time (and even now the respondent) is an employee of A.P.S.C.R.I.C. The respondent has based his right inter alia in G.O. Ms No. 275 dated 14.12.1995 and on the fact that similarly situated employees have been considered for appointment as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. Further, details are not necessary since the present appeal has become infructuous, according to the respondent.

5. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dismissed the O.A. No. 3805/2000 as not maintainable sine the Tribunal felt that the respondent was an employee of a Corporation and as corporation employee will not come within the purview of the Act. The respondent had argued that as per Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, the Tribunal has got jurisdiction since the respondent was seeking an appointment to the civil post under the State Government based inter alia on G.O. Ms. No. 275 dated 14.12.1995. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. as not maintainable.

6. The respondent filed W.P. No. 14645/2000 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and not only prayed for setting aside the Tribunal order dated 24.7.2000 in O.A. No. 3805/2000 but also prayed for a direction to consider the case of the respondent for appointment as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector.

7. The Division Bench of the High Court did not go into the maintainability of the O.A. and further considered the matter and passed the impugned order. The observations are as follows :

“Now, the scenario has been changed. It is the case of the petitioner that he was sponsored by Surplus Manpower Cell in Finance Wing to Transport Commissioner for being appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, and consequently he had undergone training and completed the training. But no appointment orders are issued.

Under these circumstances, since the petitioner was found to be eligible for being appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector and also undergone required training, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the Surplus Manpower Cell in Finance Department shall consider the case of the petitioner for sponsoring name of petitioner to the Transport Commissioner for being appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector pending any modifications to the Rules, if any required. This exercise shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”

8. The appellant purportedly in implementation of the impugned order took up the case of the respondent on the ground that Act 14 of 1997 of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature prohibits the corporation employees from being absorbed in Government. In fact the contention of the respondent is that the Act 14 of 1997 has no application sine

Click Here to Read the rest of this document