MOHD GHOUSE Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with proceedings No. Estt. 1(2)784/97, dated 20-9-2000 and set aside the same as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution; to declare the order dated 24-8-2004 passed in O.A. No. 5799 of 2000 by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, as being erroneous, perverse and contrary to law and consequently declare the petitioner is entitled to be continued as Watchman with all consequential benefits including difference of pay scale, arrears, etc; also to set aside the proceedings No. ADM(N)A/714/2000/858, dated 28-2-2006 as being wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice.

(2.) The facts stated are: The writ petitioner herein was appointed as Wathchman in the office of the 3rd respondent-the Assistant Director of Marketing, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, under Rule 3(a) of the A.P. Last Grade Service Rules, 1992, on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Nalgonda, in the existing vacancy caused due to the promotion of one Sri K. Sudhakar, Watchman as Junior Assistant. The services of the petitioner were also regularized as per Rule 10 of the A.P. Last Grade Service Rules, 1992, having declared his probation as satisfactory on 9-4-1997. However, after three years thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 19-7-2000 as to why his services as Watchman should not be terminated for his appointment was irregular and made against the provisions of A.P. (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994, (Act 2 of 1994). The petitioner questioned the said show cause notice before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 4798 of 2000. The Tribunal by order dated 9-8-2000 directed the 3rd respondent to take the explanation of the petitioner and submit the file to the Director of Marketing, A.P., Hyderabad to examine the matter and pass appropriate orders. Thereupon, the Director of Marketing, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, passed order dated 20-9-2000 removing the petitioner from service as his appointment was found to be in contravention of the provisions of Act 2 of 1994. Questioning his order of removal, the petitioner filed the instant O.A. The Tribunal by the impugned order while disposing of the O.A., upheld the termination order passed against the petitioner by observing that his appointment was contrary to the provisions of Act 2 of 1994, however, given liberty to the authorities to consider issuing fresh posting to the petitioner, if there is a sanctioned post of Watchman existing under the control of 3rd respondent, along with other eligible persons as that of the petitioner. Further aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the applicant in the O.A.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner-applicant and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.