Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.
Medi Vijaya Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh-Respondent
Writ Petition No.39874 of 2022
Decided On : 18-07-2023
Mandamus - Panchayat Service Rules - G.O.Ms.No.347, G.O.Ms.No.330 - The court discussed the rules governing the promotion of Administrative Officers to the post of MPDO and the calculation of the 34% quota from the feeder category. The court considered the representations made by the petitioners Association and the amendments made in the Revenue and Finance Departments' service rules. The court directed Respondent No.1 to consider the representations and pass appropriate orders within four months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Administrative Officers in the Panchayat Raj Department, sought an amendment to the panchayat service rules to fill 34% quota from the feeder category of administrative officers to the post of MPDO to substantive posts instead of substantive vacancies. They argued that the current practice was discriminatory and affected their career progression.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the existing rules for promotions were being strictly followed, and the 34% quota for Administrative Officers was not being effectively utilized. The court directed Respondent No.1 to consider the representations and pass appropriate orders within four months.
Issues: The main issue was the calculation of the 34% quota for Administrative Officers and the potential imbalance and limited career progression it may cause within the department.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the existing vacancies meant for promotions should be proceeded as per the existing rules in vogue or if Respondent No.1 considered the recommendations and representations, appropriate orders should be passed within four months.
Final Decision: The court directed Respondent No.1 to consider the representations and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months with reference to the Rules framed in respect of Departments of Revenue as well as Finance.
ORDER :
1. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
2. Heard Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M. Vijaya Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 27 and learned Government Pleader for Services-IV.
3. The case of the petitioners is as follows:
4. Petitioners herein are working as Administrative Officers (Previously Superintendents, now re-designated as Administrative Officers) at various Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads in Panchayat Raj Department. Next promotion post to the Administrative Officers is Mandal Praja Parishad Development Officer (MPDO) by following 20 point cycle to fill up the posts as per the ratio fixed vide G.O.Ms.No.330, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (E.VII.2) Department, dated 28.10.2004 and as per the service rules framed vide G.O.Ms.No.347, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (E.VII.2) Department, dated 21.11.2001. 34% of substantive vacancies of MPDO are earmarked for filling by Administrative Officers and the percentage has to be calculated on substantive vacancies and not on the cadre strength.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the majority of Administrative Officers/Superintendents are being promoted as MPDOs (Mandal Parishad Development Officers) towards the end of their careers. Consequently, they retire shortly after assuming the position, in contrast to direct recruits and promotees from other categories of Extension Officers in the Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes about the potential imbalance that could arise within the department if the quota for Administrative Officers is continually decreasing. He argues that such a situation may lead to a limited number of Administrative Officers/Superintendents getting the opportunity to serve as MPDOs, affecting their career progression and representation within the department.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that the respondents are currently contemplating the promotion of Administrative Officers to the position of MPDOs, allotting them a quota of 34% out of the total vacancies during each recruitment cycle. However, the counsel highlights that these 34% positions are not being designated as substantive posts due to the short period of retirement.. In existing MPDO’s, the other category persons are more in number and the same was explained as below:
| Sl. No. | Feeder Cadre | Total % as per G.O.Ms.No .330 | No.of Posts allotted | Present working strength | Excess /Shortage |
| 1. | Direct Recruitment | 30 | 198 | 243 | 62 Excess |
| 2. | EO PR&RD and EO Gr.I(29%+4%) | 33 | 218 | 238 | 20 Excess |
| 3. | Assistant Section Officers | 3 | 20 | 5 | 15 Shortage |
| 4. | Administrative Officers of MPP/ZPP (Superintendents) | 34 | 224 | 68 | 156 Shortage |
|
| Total | 100 | 660 | 554 |
|
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners furt
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's directive to consider representations and pass appropriate orders within a specified timeframe.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee cannot compel the employer to grant promotion if the Government's decision is supported by valid reasons and is not arbitrary.
when a new post is created, the concept of Rules obtaining when the vacancies arose is inappiicable as what is created is a new post on account of re-structuring of the cadre.
Statutory provisions of Recruitment Rules cannot be overridden by executive or administrative instructions.
The government has a duty to create promotional avenues in public service to avoid stagnation and discontentment among employees.
Accrued benefits on the employee prior to the changing of the Rule cannot be denied. The right accrued on the employees cannot be denied due to the wrong application of the Rule.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
