COMMON JUDGMENT

Dt.28.01.2022 (Per M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J)

Aggrieved by the order dated 28.04.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.7350 of 2019 the petitioner and respondent No.2 therein filed these two appeals under Clause 15 of Letters Patent as the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition in part. The writ petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.281 of 2020 against the disallowed claim, respondent No.2 in the writ petition preferred Writ Appeal No.221 of 2020 against the relief granted in favour of the writ petitioner.

The parties to the appeals will hereinafter be referred as arrayed before the learned single Judge for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion.

Marrapu Sankara Rao filed writ petition for issue of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 through its Company Secretary in Letter No.DCIL/MD/2019/638, dated 11.03.2019 and Office Order No.24/2019 in Ref.DCl/HR/41S00890/2019-59-B dated 23.04.2019 intimating to the petitioner that his services ceased to be continued as Director Operations and Technical with effect from 08.03.2019 (AN) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, particularly violative of Articles 19 (1)(g) 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India apart from the conditions stipulated under Share Purchase Agreement dated 08.03.2019 between the respondents, consequently set aside the proceedings in Letter No.DCIL/MD/2019/638, dated 11.03.2019 and the consequential Office Order No.24/2019 in Ref.DCl/HR/4/S00890/2019/59-B, dated 23.04.2019 issued by respondent No.2 by directing the respondents particularly respondent Nos.2 to 6 to continue the petitioner as Director (Operations and Technical) with effect from the date of Share Purchase Agreement i.e. 08.03.2019 and to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not allowing the petitioner to exercise the option of Lien in the post of General manager in respondent No.2 Corporation and not allowing the petitioner as Director Operations and Technical as illegal arbitrary and unjust, consequently direct respondent No.2 to allow the petitioner to exercise his option of Lien in the post of General Manager.

The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Director (Operations and Technical) in respondent No.2 – Corporation in pursuance of the notification issued by respondent No.1 in the year 2014 vide Office Order No.2/2015 in Ref.SS- 28012/03/2014-DCI, dated 08.05.2015 and the petitioner reported to duty in respondent No.2 – Corporation on 01.06.2015. Taking note of the above, the Board of Directors of the respondent No.2 Corporation appointed the petitioner as Additional Director, and thereafter the appointment was finalised by the Annual General Meeting as per the provisions of the Companies Act with effect from the date of joining i.e. 01.06.2015.

As per the notification, the post of Director (Operations and Technical) is tenure based position having 5 years tenure from the date of joining in the said post or date of superannuation or till passing further orders, whichever is earlier. When the officer being selected to such post, he will be allowed to complete his tenure as notified and on such completion of the tenure of 5 years period, if he has service in his parent organisation i.e. respondent No.2 and in case he was not given further extension to the post of Director, then he will join in his parent organisation to serve the rest of the service in his substantive post. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to claim deemed lien with the respondent No.2 Corporation while continuing as Management Nominee of respondent No.1 in the post of Director (Operations and Technical). Thus, the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till attaining superannuation i.e., May, 2024 as per the rules and regulations of respondent No.1 and simultaneously, he is eligible to occupy the post of Director for a period of 5 years.

While the matt