G. APPALA NAIDU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in A.P. Public Health and Municipal Engineering Services as direct recruitee on 26/6/2013. In view of the bifurcation of the State, keeping in view of the Policy of both the governments for Inter State Transfers vide Memo dtd. 7/8/2017 on making application Government of Telangana issued G.O.Rt.No.157, MA & UD Department, dtd. 13/3/2018 ordering Inter State Transfer on mutual grounds subject to taking last rank next to the last regular candidate. Even before that the State of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.73, MA & UD Department, affecting Inter State Transfer of Mohd.Sirajuddin on mutual basis accommodating the petitioner from Telangana to Andhra Pradesh. As per Inter State guidelines dtd. 7/8/2017 and the proceedings under which the petitioner was transferred to the State of A.P. categorically states that the petitioner should take last rank next to the last rank candidate. Accordingly, the Engineer-in-Chief on 30/1/2019 prepared Provisional Seniority List of AEEs/AEs (PH) of Zone-I to IV. In respect of Zone-I, the petitioner was shown at Serial No.3 after last regular recruitee candidate. The Serial No.1 is the regular candidate of Zone-I with 10/1/2014. Though the petitoner senior as per the date of appointment in view of the condition fixed in the interstate transfer orders, the petitioner was shown below No.1 and No.2. While so, on 3/9/2019 Final Seniority List of AEs and AEEs of Zone-I, II, III and IV was prepared. In respect of Zone-I though the petitioner's name is to be shown at Serial No.3, the petitioner's name was deleted from the list. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation dtd. 16/9/2019 to the 2nd respondent to include his name in the final seniority list and place before the DPC for Deputy Executive Engineer (for short "DEE"). The respondents without showing petitioner's name in seniority list, affected promotions to K.Sitharam Murthy, and NVSS Narayana vide orders dtd. 3/1/2020 from AEEs quota. The petitioner is next person in the cycle. Now the respondents are taking steps to effect promotions from DEEs to EEs, thereby the post of DEE will fall vacant. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.24265/2020 questioning the action of the respondent in not showing petitioner's name in the Final Seniority List dtd. 3/9/2019 in Zone-I, after N.V.S.S.Narayana as per the Government circular dtd. 7/8/2017, keeping in view of the G.O.Rt.No.157, MA and UD Department, dtd. 13/3/2018 and G.O.Ms.No.73, MA & UD Department, dtd. 16/2/2018 as illegal and arbitrary. The respondents filed counter stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.452, MA & UD Department, dtd. 20/6/2017, the petitioner should have minimum 3 years service. Since the petitioner not having 3 years of service, his case cannot be considered. The question of providing 3 years minimum service in the same department in respect of the petitioner, one P.Jayadev who filed W.P.No.17258/2020 before a Division Bench of this Court with same subject matter. In the said petition, the issue raised was the length of service is different from minimum service. This Court, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner there under for promotion to the post of DEE (PH) without granting seniority by considering the experience counting from the date of initial appointment for eligibility as per G.O.Ms.No.452, MA & UD Department, dtd. 20/6/2017. Thereafter, the petitioner I.A.No.1/2021 and this Court passed interim orders on 21/1/2021 for considering petitioner's case keeping in view of the Division Bench judgement referred above for promotion to the post of DEE. Though the issue is covered under the above Division Bench judgement, though the length of service from the date of promotion is to be taken into account as experience for counting the service, once again the 2nd respondent ignored the orders of the Division Bench and rejected the case for promotion to DEE vide Memo No.24265/CS1/2021, dtd. 8/4/2021 declaring that petitioner is not eligible for promotion to the post of DEE without having minimum service quoting rule 33 (a) and 35(b). Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) This Court, vide order, dtd. 7/5/2021, granted interim direction by suspending the operation of the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.24265/CS1/2021, dtd. 8/4/2021.