B. RAMAKOTESWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to "declare the action of respondents in placing services of the petitioner by way of deputation as a faculty member of Police Training College, Anantapuramu, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a consequential direction was sought to set aside the R.O.Rt.No.219 Home (Courts-A) Department dated 27.02.2020 and to direct the respondents to place the petitioner as full additional charge of Director of Prosecutions'.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that, the prosecution officers were organized as cadre in the State of Andhra Pradesh and Rules were framed vide G.O.Ms.No.188 called as 'The Andhra Pradesh state Prosecution Services rules, 1992' (for short 'the Rules'); these rules provide for (i) seven categories of posts in Prosecution Services of Andhra Pradesh (ii) the method of recruitment and (iii) the qualifications etc.; petitioner practiced as an Advocate for more than seven years and was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor category-7 cadre on 06.11.1998; in the year 2000, the 1st respondent notified vacancies for the posts of Additional Public Prosecutors - Grade-II (Category-5) and the petitioner participated in the said selection and stood first in the combined State of Andhra Pradesh and was selected for the said post and later was promoted as Public Prosecutor, Grade-II (Category-4) on 12.01.2012; he was promoted as Public Prosecutor/Joint Director, which is Category-3 post, on 09.01.2018 and as Additional Director, which is category-2 post on 21.02.2019; while working as Joint Director i.e., in Category-3, since he was the senior most, he was placed as full Additional charge of the post of Additional Director (Category-2) and also was kept in charge to look after the administrative work of the Directorate, vide Govt. Memo dated 15.02.2018; while working as Additional Director, category-2, he was placed as Full Additional Charge of the post of Director, (Category-1) on 21.02.2019; while so, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.219 Home (Courts-a) Department dated 27.02.2020, placing the services of the petitioner to work on deputation in the Police Training College, Anantapuramu, as a faculty member duly relieving him from holding the post of full additional charge of Post of director of Prosecutions; there is only one post of Faculty Member in the Police Training College, Anantapuramu, which is manned by Category-6 of the Prosecution cadre; petitioner was holding the post of Category-2 i.e., four posts above the said post in the hierarchy of posts of Prosecution cadre, which is the second highest post in the hierarchy; no consent was obtained from the petitioner, which is mandatory for all deputations; pursuant to the impugned order, petitioner joined in Police Training College on 02.03.2020 and went on leave from 03.03.2020; the Principal, Police Training College, vide letter dated 05.09.2020 informed the 2nd respondent that there is no deputation post of Additional Director of Prosecution to work as Faculty Member in the Police Training college and that there is only one post of faculty member, which is of the rank of Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor (category-6) in the said college and the same is filled and that there is no vacancy; Rule 3 of the Service Rules have been amended vide G.O.ms.No.24 dated 04.02.2020, providing for appointment of an Advocate, who has been in practice for not less than 10 years, including a Public Prosecutor/Additional Public Prosecutor/Assistant Public Prosecutor, who has put in not less than ten years of service to the post of Director of Prosecutions and the said amendment is contrary to the very object and scheme of Section 24 read with Section 25-A of Cr.P.C.; petitioner submitted representations dated 10.08.2020, 30.09.2020, 30.11.2020 and on 29.12.2020 protesting against the action of the 1st respondent in posting the petitioner to a post which is four cadres below the present cadre, that too by deputation, without consent and requested for rectifying the said irregularity, but there is no response from the respondents. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) Counter-Affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent stating interalia that the writ petition is filed after lapse of one year and that on the said ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Chairman/Managing Director, UP Power Corporation Limited vs. Ram Gopal, 2020 4 SCJ 242 '; police training college is one of the wings of the Home Department and the Directorate of Prosecutions shall function under the administrative control of the Head of Home Department in the State and the services of the petitioner are being utilized in the Police Training College to train the Prosecutors and the Police; the 1st respondent is competent to utilize the services of its employee to work on deputation and no consent is required from the employee, as his pay and other allowances are protected; the 1st respondent sent a panel for the post of Director of Prosecutions to the Hon'ble High Court for its consideration and the same is pending and in the stopgap period, the 1st respondent is competent to place any suitable person as full additional charge of Director of Prosecutions; the judgments relied upon by the petitioner does not apply to the facts of the case, as the service rules are different.