B RAJAN RAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated 13-7-1999 made in O.A.No.3659 of 1995 dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner wherein he sought a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 28-11-1994, the date on which the petitioner was appointed as Record Assistant in the Department of Jails of the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

(2.) To begin with, the petitioner was appointed as junior Assistant in the Andhra Pradesh RICEFED. The A.P. RICEFED went into liquidation. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.329, Agriculture and Co-operation (Co-op.I) Department, dated 22-5-1993 and directed that the employees of the Andhra Pradesh RICEFED as shown in the Annexure appended to the said order may be absorbed in Government departments/ orgainsations relaxing the employment procedures/APPSC. In pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.329, dated 22-5-1993, the District Collector, West Godavari District, the 2nd respondent herein allotted the petitioner to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, O/o Commercial Taxes, Eluru for his absorption as Junior Assistant, against a vacancy then existing in the OC category. In pursuance of the allotment order issued by the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Eluru, issued proceedings dated 13-4-1994 appointing the petitioner as junior Assistant in the Commercial Tax office Tadepalligudem, in the then existing vacancy. However, the petitioner was not permitted to join duty as Junior Assistant in the Commercial Tax office, Tadepalligudem- On the other hand, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Eluru by his proceeding dated 29-6-1994 surrendered the petitioner to the 2nd respondent on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible for the post of Junior Assistant in the Commercial Tax department as per the guidelines issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 8-3-1994. Thereafterwards, it appears that in pursuance of a requisition placed by the Department of Jails of Andhra Pradesh Government before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent by his proceeding dated 27-7-1994 re-allotted the petitioner to the Jails Department to be appointed as Record Assistant. On 23-11-1994, the District Sub- Jail Officer, West Godavari District, Eluru, appointed the petitioner as Record Assistant in the vacancy that existed in the OC category in the office of the District Sub- Jail Officer, West Godavari District, Eluru. In pursuance of this appointment order, the petitioner reported for duty on 28-11-1994.

(3.) Thereafterwards, the petitioner instituted O.A.No. 3659 of 1995 before the learned Tribunal. The petitioner alleged that he and M/s. T.L. Veracharyulu, D. Sambasiva Reddy, Punna Reddy, were working as Junior Assistants in the establishment of A.P. RICEFED and all of them are Juniors to him in the cadre of Junior Assistants, and they too possessed only SSC pass educational qualification as the petitioner, and when the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent allotted those three officials to the Commercial Tax Department to be appointed as Junior Assistants whereas the 2nd respondent allotted the petitioner as Record Assistant which post is an inferior post to the post of Junior Assistant, in the Department of Jails of the Government, and this action of the 2nd respondent tantamounts to invidious discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution. So alleging, the petitioner sought the relief already referred to above. Opposing the Original Application, the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the District Sub-Jail Officer, West Godavari District, Eluru, filed a joint counter- affidavit. There is no necessity for us to refer to the said counter-affidavit in detail except to state that the respondents 1 and 3 have not traversed and denied the specific allegation of the petitioner that M/s T.L. Veracharyulu, D. Sambasiva Reddy, Punna Reddy who are admittedly juniors to the petitioner in the cadre of Junior Assistants in the establishment of A.P. RICEFED and who are allotted and appointed as Junior Assistants in the Commercial Tax Department are having only SSC pass educational qualification, in the counter-affidavit filed by them. However, the respondents in the counter- affidavit filed in this writ petition, state that the petitioner is not an Intermediate passed and therefore, he was not allotted as Junior Assistant in the Commercial Tax Department. Quite curiously, the counter- affidavit filed in this writ petition does not traverse the specific allegation of the petitioner that the other three officials who have been allotted to the Commercial Tax department also possess only SSC pass educational qualification. It is true that the petitioner did not make grievance when the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes surrendered him to the 2nd respondent by his proceeding dated 29-6-1994. But, the explanation as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner at that point of time being an unemployed youth, thought something is better than nothing and therefore the circumstances forced him to accept the job offered to him as Record Assistant and later he agitated his grievance by filing Original Application before the learned Tribunal. It is true, the scheme framed in G.O.Ms.No.329 dated 22-5-1993 seems to be rehabilitatory in nature on considerations of compassion and humanity. Nevertheless, the Executive Government has to implement that scheme subject to the constitutional limitations and the principle of fair play in action. Since the guarantee of equal protection envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India embraces the entire realm of 'State action', it would extend not only when an individual is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of his rights or in the matter of imposing liabilities upon him, but also in the matter of granting privileges and giving jobs. In taking this view, we are fully fortified by the judgments in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, Shrikishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar and State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas. It is true that no satisfactory materials are placed before us to take a final decision in the matter as to whether the petitioner as well as the three employees who have been allotted to the Commercial Tax department do possess only SSC pass educational qualification or not. However, if the allegation of the petitioner is true, prima facie, it would seem to us that denial of appointment to the petitioner to the post of junior Assistant and granting appointment to his juniors as junior Assistant in the Commercial Tax department would violate Article 14 postulates. The learned Tribunal with respect we should observe, did not bestow expected attention and consideration of the facts pleaded by the petitioner in his application, and it seems to have rejected the application of the petitioner thinking that the scheme envisaged under G.O.Ms.No.329 is only on compassion basis and therefore the petitioner cannot claim, as a matter of right, to be appointed to the post of Junior Assistant in the Commercial Tax Department. The State cannot practise discrimination among equals even in extending or paying gratuities. Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits it. In that view of the matter, we allow this writ petition partly and set aside the order of the learned Tribunal. The proceedings shall stand remitted to the learned Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the Original Application de novo after giving reasonable opportunity to both the sides to place relevant materials. The petitioner and the respondent authorities are granted six weeks time to place additional pleadings and evidence, if they so desire, before the learned Tribunal. No costs.