SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 1088

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
M. J. Ratna Kanth Babu – Appellant
Versus
Gov. of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3837 of 2020
Decided On : 02-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
M.R.Tagore, Advocate, Naga Praveen, Advocate, J.Sudheer, Advocate

The seniority list was not prepared in accordance with the rules and the petitioners' objections were not considered.

Headnote:

The writ petition was filed by the petitioners, who were directly recruited as Royalty Inspectors, challenging the final seniority list issued by the respondents, which placed them below the promotees. The petitioners contended that the seniority list was not prepared in accordance with the rules and that their objections were not considered. The respondents argued that the seniority list was prepared in accordance with the rules and that the petitioners' objections were not valid. The Court held that the seniority list was not prepared in accordance with the rules and that the petitioners' objections were not considered. The Court directed the respondents to prepare a fresh seniority list in accordance with the rules and to consider the petitioners' objections.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were directly recruited as Royalty Inspectors. The respondents issued a final seniority list, which placed the petitioners below the promotees. The petitioners contended that the seniority list was not prepared in accordance with the rules and that their objections were not considered. The respondents argued that the seniority list was prepared in accordance with the rules and that the petitioners' objections were not valid.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the seniority list was not prepared in accordance with the rules and that the petitioners' objections were not considered.

Issues: Whether the seniority list was prepared in accordance with the rules. Whether the petitioners' objections were considered.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the seniority list was not prepared in accordance with the rules and that the petitioners' objections were not considered. The Court directed the respondents to prepare a fresh seniority list in accordance with the rules and to consider the petitioners' objections.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned final seniority list. The Court directed the respondents to prepare a fresh seniority list in accordance with the rules and to consider the petitioners' objections.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. - Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M. R. Tagore, learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 to 11, Sri V. Naga Praveen, learned counsel for respondents Nos.12 and 13, and learned AGP for Services - II, for respondents Nos.1 and 2.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

    "...to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus;

    (a) Set aside the final seniority list vide Memo No.1376/E3/2013, dated 21.01.2020 in the cadre of Royalty Inspectors as bad, illegal, without following principles of natural justice and unconstitutional;

    (b) Declare the action of the respondents in not fixing and/or not maintaining the ratio between direct recruitees and promotees in the cadre of Royalty Inspectors, though it became a first level Gazetted Post and Entry Level post with direct recruitment as one of the modes of the recruitment on par with the ratio as was maintained for Assistant Geologist i.e., 3 : 7 between direct recruitees and promotees when it was the first level Gazette with direct recruitment as one of the modes of recruitment as bad, illegal, irrational and unconstitutional;

    (c) Redraw the seniority in the cadre of Royalty Inspectors by fixing the ratio as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.530 dated 04.10.2000;

    (d) and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;"

3. The petitioners' case is that the Andhra Pradesh Mining Service Rules 1998, (in short "the special rules") were issued vide G.O.Ms.No.59, Industries and Commerce (Mines-I), dated 10.03.1998. The A.P. Mining Service consisted of various categories of posts in which the post of Assistant Geologist was shown as Category - 11. As per the Special Rules, the post of Assistant Geologist could be filled up by direct recruitment and also by appointment by transfer from Royalty Inspectors under Rule 3 thereof.

4. The post of Royalty Inspectors was not part and parcel of A.P. Mining Service Rules. This was included/shown in A.P. Mining Subordinate Service Rules. Vide G.O.Ms.No.340, dated 10.12.2007, the post of Royalty Inspector was removed from A.P. Mining Subordinate Service Rules and by G.O.Ms.No.341, dated 10.12.2007, the same was included in A.P. Mining Service Rules as Category - 18. Prior to 10.12.2007, the post of Royalty Inspectors was being filled up by promotion from the post of Technical Assistants, and there was no direct recruitment to this post. From 10.12.2007, when the post of Royalty Inspectors was incorporated in A.P. Mining Service Rules, rule 3 of the special rules, provided that this post shall be filled by appointment by transfer from Technical Assistant as also by direct recruitment.

5. So far as the post of Assistant Geologist is concerned, which was in the A.P. Mining Service Rules, Category -11, vide the same G.O.Ms.No. 341, dated 10.12.2007, the mode of direct recruitment for this post was deleted and the same could now be filled up only by appointment by transfer from the Royalty Inspectors.

6. Since 10.12.2007 the entry level gazetted post in A.P. Mining Services is Royalty Inspectors and the Assistant Geologists became a post to be filled by appointment by transfer from Royalty Inspectors. Before the aforesaid change vide G.O.Ms.Nos.340 and 341, dated 10.12.2007, vide G.O.Ms.No.530, dated 04.10.2000 for the post of Assistant Geologist, a cycle of 10 was prescribed between promotees and direct recruitees in the ratio of 7 : 3. There was no need to prescribe any ratio for Royalty Inspectors as at that time there was only one source of recruitment for Royalty Inspectors by promotion from Technical Assistants.

7. After G.O.Ms.Nos.340 and 341, dated 10.12.2007, the ratio of 7:3 in a cycle of 10 between the promotees and direct recruitees on the post of Assistant Geogolist, became redundant as now there was only one source of recruitment for the post of Assistant Geologist i.e., by appointment by transfer / p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top