GOVT. OF A.P. Vs. BABUNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of both the writ petitions are similar in nature. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.

(2.) Respondents 1 to 3 in both the writ petitions (for short 'the respondents') were appointed as Commercial Tax Officers in the year 2001. However, they did not pass departmental test within the stipulated time. They approached the Government, 1st petitioner herein, through the 2nd petitioner herein, with a request to relax the relevant conditions to enable them to complete the probation. The 1st petitioner issued G.O.Rt.No.633, dated 22.03.2006 in respect of respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.27402 of 2013 and G.O.Rt.No.1228, dated 30.05.2006 in respect of respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.27403 of 2013. That enabled the respondents to complete the probation and they were also promoted to the posts of Deputy Commercial Tax Officers.

(3.) Citing G.O.Rt.Nos.633 and 1228, some more Commercial Tax Officers of the same batch approached the 1st petitioner with similar requests. The Association of the A.P. Commercial Tax Non-Gazzetted Officers submitted a representation, dated 12.02.2009 to the petitioners with a request to adopt uniform yardstick in the matter of relaxation, so that there would not be any advantage to some and disadvantage to others. Taking note of these aspects, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.275, dated 19.02.2009 directing that the G.O.Rt.Nos.633 and 1228 be reviewed. The 2nd petitioner was required to submit proposals to the Government for this purpose. The necessary particulars were appended to the G.O.