STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is being filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and two officers of the Government seeking a declaration that the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent-National Commission in File No.T4/AP- 23/SSW-I, dated 30/9/2016 and the consequential summons issued vide File No.T-4/AP-23/2016/SSW-I dated 13/11/2017 to all the petitioners is without jurisdiction and consequently to set-aside the same.

(2.) The 3rd respondent herein, who was earlier working as Junior Assistant in the office of the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj, had been selected as an Executive Officer and joined in that post on 17/8/1994. Subsequently, he sought repatriation as Junior Assistant to the office of the Commissioner, which was accepted and the 3rd respondent herein was repatriated to the office of the Commissioner vide G.O.Rt.No.1027, PR&RD, dated 13.07.1998. He was also given notional promotion as Senior Assistant w.e.f., 23.12.1996 by way of proceedings of the Commissioner dated 19.09.1999. Subsequently, when promotions to further posts were taken up, the 3rd respondent had made representations on 6/11/2000, 22/11/2000 and 29/11/2000 contending that he was eligible to be promoted as Superintendent above other Senior Assistants in the office of the Commissioner. As his representations were not being considered, the 3rd respondent approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A.No.1141 of 2001. The prayer in the O.A was also amended to challenge the order of rejection of his representations. The Essential contention of the applicant-3rd respondent herein, on the question of seniority, as recorded in the order of the Tribunal is as follows:

(3.) The Tribunal, after considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, as well as the employees who would be affected by the order, had held that the transfer of the Junior Assistants was done in contravention of the Rules as the number of persons transferred were in excess of the quota available to them. As far as the Typists were concerned, the Tribunal has held that the appointment by transfer of Typists is not in violation of the Rules. After coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal went into the question of number of Junior Assistants, who had been transferred to the office of the Commissioner and held that out of the 15 such persons, three Junior Assistants remained in service and the services of these Junior Assistants were regularized in the year 1985 and they were subsequently promoted as Senior Assistants in 1982/1987/1990 and further promoted as Superintendents in 1987/2000. It was further recorded that the promotion of three other Junior Assistants, who were absorbed into the Commissioner's office subsequent to the appointment of the applicant-3rd respondent herein, even though in excess of quota, could not be treated as being prejudicial to the interests of the applicant-3rd respondent herein as these persons were promoted as Senior Assistants in 1991/1994 by which time the applicant-3rd respondent herein had not qualified himself for promotion till 1996. On that ground, the case of the applicant-3rd respondent herein against the persons absorbed into the office of the Commissioner as Junior Assistants was rejected. As far as the case of the Typists was concerned, the Tribunal took into account the cases of 26 Typists, who were posted on transfer/deputation during 1984 to 1990 and the fact that the typists, who were subsequently promoted as Senior Assistants and Superintendents, had been working for a very long time. It was also pointed out that a combined seniority list of Typists and Junior Assistants had been served on the applicant-3rd respondent herein in 1990 and he has not raised any issue in relation to the said seniority list, which was the basis, on which promotions have been carried out. As the applicant-3rd respondent herein did not question the promotion based on the seniority list until the year 2000 and as the persons over whom the petitioner is claiming seniority have already been promoted and have been working for a very long time, the Tribunal also held that the petition is hit by laches.