K. SUGUNA Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dated 22.10.2019 of the 1st respondent, wherein petitioner was asked to give willingness to take lower post i.e., office subordinate on the ground that she has not acquired Telugu and English higher grade typewriting qualification, as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that, she is a graduate in Maths and also acquired P.G. Degree in Master of Computer Applications (MCA) from JNTU, Kakinada in the year 2011 and secured I Class with distinction; she was appointed as Typist in the existing vacancy on 03.08.2016 and posted in the office of the Mandal Praja Parishad, Anaparthy, on compassionate ground, in the place of her deceased husband, who passed away on 14.01.2016. In the said appointment order, a condition is incorporated, which states that the petitioner should acquire typewriting higher grade qualification both in English and Telugu within two years of minimum and five years of maximum grace period from the date of her joining; all the offices in the State, including the 1st respondent-organization are not using typewriting machines and entire work is being done with computers; the government itself has taken a decision and relaxed acquiring the qualification of Typewriting as well as shorthand vide G.O.Ms.No.116 GAD (Ser.B) Department dated 29.02.2008 to the persons appointed between 05.03.1987 to 04.08.1998, by invoking Rule 31 of State and Subordinate Service Rules; in similar set of circumstances, one Sri CH. Hanumantha Rao, who was appointed on compassionate grounds on 08.06.1998 was terminated as he did not acquire the said qualification within the prescribed period, he filed OA No.3301 of 2004 challenging his termination and the said OA was allowed with all consequential benefits and the Government also issued orders vide G.O.Rt.No.4428, Fin. (Admn.III) Department dated 21.12.2011, reinstating his services with all consequential benefits; in a similar set of facts wherein the services of the individuals were not regularized on the ground of non-acquiring of technical qualifications, they filed OA No.2201 of 2014 and batch and the same were allowed and the government implemented the said order; when a similar notice was given to one candidate, she filed OA No.1856 of 2017 and the said OA was allowed setting aside the notice; challenging the said order in O.A., the State filed WP No.11321 of 2019 before this Court and the said writ petition was dismissed on 14.08.2019 confirming the order passed by the Tribunal; the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'H.L.Trehan vs. Union of India, 1989(2) USJ SC 145', held that 'once the case of one employee is decided by the competent court, the other identically placed employees should be given the same benefit without any further litigation'; the same view was expressed by the apex Court in 'K.C. Sharma vs. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 3588'; even as per G.O.Ms.No.969 (Ser.A) Department dated 27.10.1995, five years grace period is given to the persons appointed on compassionate grounds; petitioner is also entitled for similar relaxation which was granted in favour of certain other employees vide G.O.Ms.No.116 GA (Ser.B) Department dated 29.02.2008. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) When the matter came up for admission, an interim direction was passed on 08.10.2020, directing the respondents not to revert the petitioner and continue her as Typist.