Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 3
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.
N. Satyanarayana Murthy – Petitioner
Vs.
The A.P. Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Ltd, Rep by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director Parisram Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and 2 others - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NOs. 8851, 11944, 16535 OF 2008 AND 6453 OF 2011
Decided on: 19-01-2015
Advocate Appeared
Counsel for the petitioners: Sri V. Padmanabha Rao
Counsel for the respondents: 1. Sri M. Papa Reddy
2. G.P. for Cooperation
3. Sri V. Raja Manohar
4. Mrs. Marie Desai
Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 - An act to consolidate and amend law relating to cooperative societies in state of Andhra Pradesh facilities and strengthen functioning of cooperative societies based on co-operative - Corporation is a public sector - Challenging appointment of respondents common seniority list of all categories of employees - Claim of petitioners - Scheduled Castes - Scheduled Tribes - Challenges very process of recruitment - Corporation has framed its own services regulations – Held, In absence of any plea or material produced by Corporation it would be hazardous on part of this Court to record a finding of fact firmly that there is more than one post available in each cadre as Manager – However on last occasion Corporation seemed to have addressed a communication to its standing counsel a copy of which has circulated for my consideration - It emerges from contents thereof that petitioners have been subsequently promoted as Managers - This event of promotion of petitioners would only leave a hint that there are more number of posts than one available in the cadre of Managers in service of corporation - Otherwise petitioners could not have been promoted while unofficial respondents are still holding same posts of Managers - Such a promotion could only become possible if only there is one more post of Manager available - Otherwise two people could not have been appointed and promoted against one single post - It is for Corporation to sort it out this factual controversy - Petition dismissed (Para 37)
W.P.No.8851 of 2008 was instituted by one Sri N. Satyanarayana Murthy who was then working as Deputy Manager (Marketing) with the first respondent-Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Limited, challenging the appointment of respondents 2 & 3 as Managers through proceedings dated 26.12.2007 without considering his case. The same individual has instituted W.P.No.11944 of 2008 challenging the appointment of the third respondent therein as Manager through proceedings dated 07.05.2008. W.P.No.16535 of 2008 was instituted by one Sri K.V. Ranga Reddy challenging the appointment of the fourth respondent as Manager through proceedings dated 26.12.2007 as bad. The fourth writ petition W.P.No.6453 of 2011 has been filed by the Employees Association of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers Federation, the second respondent therein (henceforth referred to, for short as Corporation), challenging the appointment of respondents 4, 5, 6 and 7as Managers. All these four cases substantially deal with the same question of law and hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
Heard Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri V. Padmanabha Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Ms. Mary Desai, learned counsel for the contesting unofficial respondents and Sri T. S. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of the Corporation.
The Corporation is a public sector undertaking which was established in the year 1981 in collaboration with National Diary Development Board to increase the oil seeds production. Initially, the federation used to work at the state level and the cooperative oil seeds unions used to function at divisional level and subsequently the primary agricultural societies at each village level have been added up. Due to the financial crisis, the unions established at Gadwal in Mahabubnagar District and Piler in Chittoor District, have been closed down. Thereafterwards, the cadre strength has been approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in terms and in accordance with Section 116 (C) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. In pursuance of earlier round of litigation, common seniority list of all categories of employees has been published on 15.05.2007. It is the claim of the petitioners that there are seven different categories of Manager/Divisional Officer which are approved in the cadre of the Corporation. They are:
1. Manager (Personal & Administration or HRD)
2. Manager (Finance)
3. Manager (Marketing)
4. Manager (Plants & Projects)
5. Manager (Procurement & Inputs)
6. Manager (Oil Palm Development) and
7. Manager (Divisional Officer at Field Level)
It is contended that the job requirement of each of these posts being vastly different from one another, though they may carry identical scale of pay, but each is a separate and isolated post by itself in the cadre concerned. All the posts cannot be added together for purposes of applying the principles of reservation amongst various social sectors such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, etcetera. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel would submit that, when these posts are isolated posts, they form into a single post cadre and consequently, the question of applicability of principles of reservation would not arise. Any attempt to apply the principles of social reservation amongst various social sectors would amount to reserving 100%, which is impermissible. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that the notification issued by the Corporation on 01.11.2007 inviting applications exclusively from members belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes treating the vacancies that have arisen in these isolated cadres as backlog vacancies to be filled in by candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, is completely illegal. He, therefore, challenges the very process of rec
