V V SARMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P. No. 607 of 1967, has been filed by three petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the Government from implementing the G.O. Ms. No. 179, Public Works Department, dated 2nd February, 1966, in so far as it relates to them. W.P. No. 938 of 1967, has been filed by three petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to implement the G.O. Ms. No. 179, Public Works Department, dated 2nd February, 1966 and the petitioners in W. P. No. 607, have been made respondents 3 to 5 in this writ petition. It will be convenient to deal with the two writ petitions separately. W.P. No. 607 of 1967.-The Electricity Department had two wings: (1) Office of the Chief Engineer, Electricity (Projects and Board) and (2) Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector to Government By an appropriate order, dated 14th August, 1957, the post of the Chief Electrical Inspector to Government was merged with the post of the Chief Engineer, Electricity. These wings had separate non-technical staff functioning as separate units. As a measure of policy, the Government of Andhra Pradesh decided to merge the non-technical staff of the Electrical Inspectorate with the office of the Chief Engineer (Projects and Board) with effect from 14th August, 1957 and have issued G.O. Ms. No. 179, Public Works Department, dated 2nd February, 1966. The Government Order is in these terms :

(2.) The petitioners challenge the legality and justice of the above Government Order. Mr. Narasa Raju, the learned Counsel, has contended firstly, that the direction that the Chief Engineer should review all promotions and confirmations effected since 14th August, 1957 on the basis of a combined seniority list will affect the rights already accrued to and vested in the petitioners ; secondly, that such a retrospective review of vested rights is repugnant to law and justice ; and thirdly that, in truth and substance, the places allotted to the petitioners in the combined seniority list amount to their demotion or reduction in rank, which is violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution.

(3.) The case of the Government is that the merger of the two units of the Department was made for administrative convenience and in public interest to achieve uniformity and that such a policy decision is well within their powers and that the preparation of a provisiona1 common gradation list does aot visit the petitioners with any penalty or infringement of their rights. It is also urged that the present writ petition is not only misconceived but premature as, in fact, the petitioners have not yet been reverted. Mr. Dhanurbhanudu, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 938 of 1967 has addressed lengthy arguments generally supporting the ccrtentions cf the Government Pleader that the petitioners in W.P. No. 607 of 1967, have no right to interdict the implementation of the Government Order because first, the Government have plenary power to regulate the working of any department under their control either by effecting a divisior of the departments or their merger thereof; secondly, the impugned Government Order not being a rule or regulation but only an administrative order, the contention that it cannot be retrospectively applied is untenable and thirdly, the petitioners are not permanently appointed to the category of Super intender and as such, they can have no grievar ce with the terms of the Government Order and the review of the seriority of all the non-technical staff as on 14th August, 1957.