Back
2017 Supreme(AP) 874
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. Ramasubramanian, M. Ganga Rao, JJ.
Smt. P.Marudwathi W/o. Sri C. Narasimha Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.22817 of 2011
Decided On : 26-12-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, Sr. Counsel, Mrs. K. Udaya Sri.
For the Respondent: Mr. J.R. Manohar Rao, Mr. J.U.M.V. Prasad
Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission (Subordinate Service) Rules 2006 – Rules 33, 34 – Constitution of India – Article 309 – Rejecting Request – Seniority List – Petitioner is working as an Assistant Section Officer in the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has come up with the above writ petition, challenging proceedings passed by Registrar of Consumer Forum, rejecting her request to be placed above respondents 2 to 4 in seniority list – Held, If claims of the writ petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 are tested with reference to Clause (ii) and (iii) of Rule 36, it will be clear that the petitioner herein is senior in age to respondents 2 to 4. even if Clause (ii) applies, the date from which the petitioner was placed on probation, as she belonged to the same service, would have been naturally earlier than the date on which respondents 2 to 4 were placed on probation, upon coming from the District Consumer Forum service to State Consumer Commission Subordinate Service – Therefore, in any which way, one looks at the whole issue, the petitioner will be entitled to seniority over and above respondents 2 to 4, in the category of Assistant Section Officer –Writ Petition Allowed. (Paras 17, 18, 19,)
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
The petitioner is working as an Assistant Section Officer in the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has come up with the above writ petition, challenging the proceedings dated 29.07.2011 passed by the Registrar of the Consumer Forum, rejecting her request to be placed above the respondents 2 to 4 in the seniority list.
2. Heard Mr. G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J. R. Manohar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 and Mr. J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
3. The petitioner was originally appointed as a Junior Stenographer in the District Consumer Forum on 21.07.1994. On her own request, she got transferred to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 14.07.1995.
4. By the proceedings dated 16.04.2010, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Section Officer in the State Commission. By the same proceedings, dated 16.04.2010, the respondents 2 to 4 who were working as Sherestdars in the District Consumer Forum were also appointed by the method of recruitment by transfer as Assistant Section Officer.
5. In other words, the petitioner as well as the respondents 2 to 4 were appointed, though by different methods, by the same proceedings dated 16.04.2010 to the post of Assistant Section Officer.
6. It is relevant to note that like the petitioner, the respondents 2 to 4 were also originally appointed only in the District Forum, respectively on 24.06.1991, 16.12.1993 and 26.11.1993 as Steno-Typist, Junior Steno and Steno respectively. Unlike the petitioner, the respondents 2 to 4 did not make a voluntary request for transfer to the State Commission, but continued in the District Forum. In the District Forum, the respondents 2 to 4 gained further promotions to the posts of Senior Assistant and Sheristadar at different points of time. At last they also gained appointed by the method of recruitment by transfer to the post of Assistant Section Officer by the proceedings dated 16.04.2010.
7. It is relevant to note that there are two separate sets of Special Rules, one governing the employees working in the District Forum and another governing the employees working in the State Commission. The Special Rules relating to Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission (Subordinate Service) Rules 2006, were famed by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 27.04.2006 in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Subordinate Service, was divided into four categories of posts, the first category being the post of Assistant Section Officer. Category 2 comprised of two posts, namely, Steno cum Typist and Junior Assistant cum Typist.
8. In the Table under Rule-4 of the Special Rules, three methods of appointment are prescribed for appointment to the post of Assistant Section Officer. They are (1) promotion of Steno Typist or Junior Assistant cum Typist from the State Commission itself, (2) appointment by transfer of Sherestadar/Head Assistant of the District Consumer Forum Subordinate Service and (3) Direct recruitment if suitable candidates are available.
9. Therefore, it is clear that the appointment of the petitioner was by the first method, namely, the method of promotion. The appointment of the respondents 2 to 4 was by the second method, namely, appointment by transfer.
10. Rule 12 of the Special Rules makes the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, applicable to the members of the Sate Consumer Commission Subordinate service. Therefore, the special Rules are silent as to the method of fixation of seniority.
11. In the case on hand, the date of first appointment of the petitioner, in a District Forum was 21.07.1994. She got transferred on her own request to the State Commission on 14.07.1995. In contrast, the respondents 2 to 4 were appointed in the District Forum on 24.06.1991, 16.
