P BHUPATHI REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The several petitioners in this Writ petition seek a direction that G. O. Ms. No. 366 dated 27-3-1965 and G. O. Ms. No. 411 dated 1-4-1965 may not be implemented against them. All of them were appointed as temporary Village Level Workers in the Community Project and National Extension Service Blocks of the Government of Hyderabad in 1955. The Government of Andhra Pradesh by G. O. Ms. No. 896 dated 24-7-1957 constituted a distinct class in the Andhra Pradesh General Subordinate Service consisting of the temporary posts of Village Level Workers under the Community Development Programme. Clause 8 of G. O. Ms. No. 896 required that a person appointed to the post of Village Level Worker shall, after the successful completion of the prescribed period of training, be on probation for a total period of one year on duty within a continuous period of two years. In 1965 Collectors under whose authority the petitioners were working declared that they had satisfactorily completed their probation on the various dates mentioned against their names. By G. O. Ms. 575 dated 27-5-1964 the Government accepted the recommendation of a Committee constituted by them in pursuance of the direction of the Government of India that permanent posts should be sanctioned to retain the services of the staff employed in the various cadres in the Community Development Blocks. Meanwhile in 1959 the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Pari-shads Act had come into force. In addition to the posts of Village Level Workers and Gram Sevikas under Government service another set of post of Village Level Workers and Gram Sevikas under the Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads had been brought into existence. Since the Community Development Programme in this State had been entrusted to the Panchayat Samathis and Zilla Parishads all the staff working in the blocks previous to the coming into force of the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samithis Act were also placed under the control of the Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads and since they were Government servants they were treated as on foreign service. The Community Development Projects having been entrusted to Panchavat Samithis and Zilla Parishads there was no further need for the Government to continue the posts which had been originally created solely for service in the blocks. The Government also thought it was desirable that there should not be two sets of posts under the Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads doing the same type of work. It was therefore decided that these posts should be integrated Consequently the Governor by a notification under Section 309 of the Constitution of India repealed G. O. Ms. No. 896 dated 24-7-1957 and abolished the costs of Village Level Workers and Gram Sevikas under Government service Since the effect of abolition of these posts was to discharge all those holding the posts from Government service a choice was given to them to opt for services as village Level Workers and Gram Sevikas under the Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads. In order to absorb them in that service the Governor in exercise of his powers under Section 26(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act created an equal number of posts of Village Level Workers and Gram Sevikas under the Panchavat Samithis. The employees were also assured that their previous service under the Government will be taken into consideration for all purposes The Government issued G. O. Ms. Nos. 366 dated 27-3-1965 and 411 dated 1-4-1965 to carry out these objects. The petitioners are aggrieved by these two orders and have filed this application for the issue of a writ not to implement these orders against them.

(2.) The main contention of Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao for the petitioners is that the Government has no jurisdiction to convert Government service into non-Government service and that by the abolition of the posts under Government service the petitioners have in effect been removed from service and that the constitutional protection given to them under Art. 311 has been infringed. He also submits that as all the petitioners were recruited originally by the Hyderabad Government their conditions of service cannot be altered except with the concurrence of the Government of India under the States Reorganisation Act.

(3.) There are two answers to the contentions of Mr. Ramachandra Rao. In the first place, the petitioners were only appointed temporarily and even when by G. O. Ms. No. 896 dated 24-7-1957 a distinct class was created in the Andhra Pradesh General Subordinate Service, it was expressly stated in the very G. O. that this class was to consist of temporary posts of Village Level Workers. The persons appointed to these posts, therefore, have no right to the posts; nor does the completion of probation confer any right on them. Secondly, Art. 311 cannot apply to a case where the posts themselves an abolished. This has been made clear by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36. S. R. Das, C. J., observed: