M. ABDUL KHAYUM, S.C. VIJAYA KUMAR AND V. NAVANEETA KRISHNA Vs. THE COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ANANTAPUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are filed, against the common order, dated 21.4.2010, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. Nos. 3989 and 3992 of 2008 respectively. These writ petitions demonstrate as to how pervasive the concept of compassionate appointments has become in various departments of Government or the local bodies. The three petitioners herein were appointed as Record Assistants on 18.7.1992, 24.1.1986 and 13.5.1991 respectively, in the erstwhile Anantapur Municipality (since upgraded as Corporation) - the 5th respondent herein, on compassionate grounds. They submitted a representation to the Government - the 4th respondent herein, stating that four persons by name S. Krishna Murthy, M. Nagabhushanam, G. Sujatha and M.L. Pramila Bai, were appointed on compassionate grounds, in the same Municipality between 1986 and 1994, as Junior Assistants or equivalent posts, and though they held the qualifications prescribed for the post of Junior Assistants, they were appointed as Record Assistants only. Acting on the said representation, 4th respondent issued G.O.Ms. No. 155, dated 22.3.1996, directing the Regional Joint Director-cum-Appellate Commissioner, Anantapur - the 3rd respondent herein, to absorb the petitioners herein as Junior Assistants in the future vacancies, by relaxing Rule 9(3) of A.P. Municipal Ministerial Subordinate Service Rules (for short "the Rules"). The 3rd respondent issued consequential proceedings dated 24.4.1996, appointing the petitioners as Junior Assistants and giving postings to them.

(2.) Some of the Record Assistants of the 5th respondent filed O.A. No. 2540 of 1996 questioning G.O.Ms. No. 155, dated 22.3.1996. It was pleaded that they are working as Record Assistants from 1977 and a Record Assistant in the Municipality can be appointed or promoted as Junior Assistant, only according to the prescribed Rules, and not otherwise ignoring the seniority of the Records Assistants. The petitioners opposed the O.A., by filing counter affidavit. They pleaded that G.O.Ms. No. 155, dated 22.3.1996, was issued in their favour, duly taking into account the fact that an individual can be appointed on compassionate grounds against posts for which he holds the qualifications, and certain other grounds were also pleaded. The Tribunal allowed O.A. No. 2540 of 1996, through its order dated 31.7.1997.

(3.) The petitioners filed W.P. No. 18173 of 1997 before this Court, challenging the order in O.A. No. 2540 of 1996. In its order dated 06.9.2007, this Court took note of the fact that the petitioners were being continued as Junior Assistants, on the basis of the interim orders, and disposed of the writ petition, giving liberty to the petitioners, to make representation, for regularization of their services. It is stated that the 5th respondent issued proceedings, dated 24.5.2008, declaring the probation of the petitioners, in the category of Junior Assistants. While petitioners were shown at serial Nos. 11, 10 and 9 respectively in the seniority list, the other contesting respondents were shown at serial Nos. 6, 12 and 14 respectively.