B VENKATAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE power to relax a condition of service or a rule laying a condition of service is an exception to general principle that all must be treated equally in the matter of public employment. So as to remove hardship resulting from application of rigorous rule, competent authority is conferred with power of relaxation in appropriate cases. Can such competent authority in purported exercise of discretion discriminate between two employees who are almost similarly situated, without following articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india? That is the short question, which is thrown up by present writ petition filed by a last grade employee in the Unit of District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

(2.) SRI B. Venkataiah, petitioner, was appointed as part time/contingent Masalchi and subsequently upgraded to post of full time contingent employee. He is now working as waterman/gardener in the Court of principal District and Sessions Judge, nalgonda. Whatever be the reason behind it, High Court directed of Principal District judges in the State to send particulars of all qualified full time and part time Masalchies for regularization. Pursuant to such communication dated 6. 1. 2004, petitioner's case was forwarded by third respondent. Having found that petitioner was over aged by two months with reference to cut-off date, a letter dated 30. 2. 2004 was sent requesting Government to relax condition purportedly in exercise of power under rule 31 of Andhra Pradesh State and subordinate Service Rules 1996 (the Rules, for brevity ). Government negatived it, which was communicated by impugned order in g. O. Rt. No. 175, dated 27. 1. 2007. The same is assailed in the writ petition inter alia on the ground that when similar benefit of relaxation was given to another employee, namely, Smt. M. Sakkubai, denial of same benefit to petitioner is discretionary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution.

(3.) THE Secretary to Government in law (Legislative Affairs and Justice)Department filed counter-affidavit Justification for the impugned order is found in paragraph 3, which reads as under: in reply to the grounds in Para (6) of the affidavit, I respectfully submit that the petitioner has been seeking relaxation of age while he did not indicate the exact date of birth anywhere in the affidavit. Further, even in the proposal sent by the Registrar general, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, hyderabad in his letter Roc. No. 2708/2003/ d1 (5), dated 30. 10. 2004, it is reported that the petitioner has not given his date of birth and as such, his age as on 30. 9. 2004 could not be furnished by the Registrar General, high Court of Andhra Pradesh.