Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.
Anapalli Apparao – Petitioner
Versus
The Special Chief Secretary – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 12465 of 2021
Decided On : 14-06-2023
Appointment - Animal Husbandry Service Rules - Rule 3(a), G.O.Rt.No. 151/AH-DD&F (AH.1) Department dated 17.06.2021 - The court discussed the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Director at SMILE, Visakhapatnam, in defiance of G.O.Rt.No. 151, and the appointment of the 3rd respondent by the 2nd respondent, who was not the appointing authority. The court set aside the appointment of the 3rd respondent and directed the government to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Director in SMILE in place of the 3rd respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Director (Animal Husbandry), sought a transfer to SMILE department due to his son's medical condition. The 2nd respondent appointed the 3rd respondent as Assistant Director at SMILE, leading to the filing of the Writ Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the 3rd respondent was in defiance of G.O.Rt.No. 151 and Rule 3(a) of the Animal Husbandry Service Rules. The 2nd respondent exceeded his jurisdiction and acted malice-in-law by appointing the 3rd respondent without awaiting the government order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appointment of the petitioner at SMILE, the authority of the 2nd respondent to make the appointment, and the compliance with G.O.Rt.No. 151 and Rule 3(a) of the Animal Husbandry Service Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment of the 3rd respondent was contrary to the rules and government order, and the 2nd respondent acted beyond his jurisdiction. It directed the government to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Director in SMILE in place of the 3rd respondent.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the appointment of the 3rd respondent was set aside. The government was directed to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Director in SMILE within 10 days.
ORDER :
1. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued vide proceedings RoC No. 2633/B1/2020, dated 16.06.2021, as it offends and affects G.O.Rt.No. 151/AH-DD&F (AH.1) Department dated 17.06.2021 and it is capricious, malicious, mala-fide and being violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India:
Counsel for the State: G.V.S. Kishore Kumar
Counsel for the 3rd Respondent: None appeared though notice served have addressed arguments
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while discharging his duties as Assistant Director (Animal Husbandry) was deputed to the SVVU Super Specialty Veterinary Hospital, Visakhapatnam which is under the control of Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Tirupati with effect from 25.02.2016 as per the proceedings No. 4756/B1/B1/2015, dated 24.12.2015. And his deputation under Foreign Service was completed by afternoon of 24.02.2021 and the petitioner herein was repatriated to the parent department and the petitioner was relieved from deputation on 24.02.2021 and he was directed to report before the Director, Animal Husbandry Development Department who is arrayed as 2nd respondent herein.
3. On repatriation to his parent department, the petitioner made a representation/ addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent on 24.02.2021 requesting to post him as Assistant Director at State Management Institute of Livestock Entrepreneurship hereafter called as (SMILE) in the place of Dr. M. Chandra Sekhar who has been promoted as Deputy Director Animal Husbandry from the post of Assistant Director and he sought transfer on the ground that son of the petitioner was under treatment for Multiple Sclerosis at KGH Hospital, Visakhapatnam. On receiving such representation from the petitioner, the 2nd respondent-Director, Animal Husbandry has addressed a letter dated 15.06.2021 to the Government. The Government vide Memo No. 1424587/AH.I/A1/2021 dated 10.06.2021 of AH. DD & F Department has sent for proposals for approval to 2nd respondent to post the petitioner as assistant director (SMILE) and issued instructions to the 2nd respondent for examination.
4. In pursuance of the letter addressed by the 2nd respondent i.e. Director, Animal Husbandry, the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No. 151, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries (AH.I) Department, dated 17.06.2021 posting/appointing the petitioner as Assistant Director (AH), Office of the Additional Director (Animal Husbandry), (SMILE), Visakhapatnam in the existing vacancy on being given promotion to one Dr. M. Chandra Sekhar who has been promoted from the post of Assistant Director as Deputy Director Animal Husbandry.
5. While things stood thus, the 2nd respondent herein has posted the 3rd respondent who is working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam as Assistant Director, SMILE, Visakhapatnam vide proceedings in ROC No. 2633/B1/2020, dated 16.06.2021. The 3rd respondent has assumed charge as Assistant Director, SMILE.
6. Assailing the said proceedings issued in RoC No. 2633/B1/2020, dated 16.06.2021, the present Writ Petition came to be filed on the ground the impugned proceedings is in defiance to GO Ms No 151 dt.17-06-2021 and that the 2nd respondent has appointed the 3rd respondent in collusion with a mala-fide intention and to deprive the genuine request of the petitioner on medical grounds, the 2nd respondent appointed the 3rd respondent as Assistant Director which is arbitrary in nature and it is also contended that the 2nd respondent is not the competent authority under Andhra Pradesh State Animal Husbandry Service Rules 1996 hereafter called as rules and also contended that as per rules the appointing authority is Government and he relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Kuppusamy and Another vs. Sta
The main legal point established in the judgment is that appointments must comply with the relevant rules and government orders, and appointing authorities must act within their jurisdiction.
. The eligibility criteria for a government post are fixed by the government and not subject to judicial review. The transfer of a government servant is an incidence of service and not open to demand....
Reservation in promotions declared unconstitutional; seniority must guide promotion decisions.
Mutual transfer of employees is valid if both are governed by the same service rules, irrespective of their postings, as established under the Directorate Service Rules, 1973.
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
