K PREM CHAND Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the order of termination issued by the 2nd respondent terminating the services of the petitioner as Manager of the 2nd respondent Corporation in pursuance of the instructions of the Government that the re-appointment was made in violation of the Recruitment and Service Rules of the Andhra Pradesh Handicrafts Development Corporation and Act 2 of 1994.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was originally appointed as Manager Class-II in the A.P. State Trading Corporation on 11-4-1977. Subsequently, he had opted to the 2nd respondent Corporation and that option was accepted by the Government and issued G.O.Ms.No.222 dated 17-4-1986. In pursuance of which, the petitioner joined the 2nd respondent Corporation on 11-6-1986 at Lepakshi Handicrafts Emporium, Vijayawada. In the month of February, 1988 the petitioner was transferred to Lepakshi Handicrafts Emporium, Visakhapatnam. Again he was transferred on 6-11-1989 to the Lepakshi Handloom Emporium at New Delhi. As the petitioner was subjected to frequent transfers, he has submitted his resignation along with the representation. The said resignation, according to the petitioner, was accepted only on 25-2-1990 and was relieved on 25-9-1990. But before the said communication of the acceptance of the resignation, the petitioner made representation on 8-12-1989 withdrawing the resignation. But, however, no action was taken. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation for reappointment and in the year 1993 the petitioner was reappointed by order dated 3-11-1993 as Manager in the 2nd respondent Corporation. While so, the petitioner made a representation to the concerned authorities to count the past service for all benefits such as pensionary benefits etc. While so, the petitioner was served a notice on 15-12-1999 to show cause why the service of the petitioner shall not be terminated. The petitioner, therefore, submitted an explanation on 11-2-2000. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the 2nd respondent Corporation. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, liable to be set aside. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is qualified to be appointed as Manager under direct recruitment and the Managing Director is the competent person to appoint and, therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the said appointment. It is also contended that Act 2 of 1994 has no application as admittedly the said Act came into force on 25-11-1993, whereas the petitioner was reappointed with effect from 3-11-1993 and as the reappointment of the petitioner was prior to the date of the said Act, the said Act has no application. Hence on both the counts, the impugned order is unsustainable. Hence, sought for setting aside the same. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel also placed the Recruitment and Service Rules and referred to Rule 28 (b) which says that the re-appointment of any person to any service shall be treated as a first appointment to such service by direct recruitment and all rules governing such appointment shall apply and contended that though the 2nd respondent referred to the said rule there is no contravention of the said sub-rule. The learned counsel also further referred to Rule 9, which shows the appointing authority to various categories of posts referred to therein and also the authority competent to relax qualification, experience, age limit etc., and contended as per the said Rule 9 the post of Manager shall be filled by the Managing Director, who is the person that appointed the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel that there is no illegality or irregularity in the appointment of the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.