Bathula Ravinder, Karimnagar Dist v. Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad And 3 Others
[ 3387 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION NO:33708 OF 2017 Between:
Bathula Ravinder, S/o. Lingaiah, Village Servant, R/o. Godishal V, Saidapur Mandal, Karimnagar district AND ...PET|T|ONER '1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
2. The Joint Collector, Karimnagar District, Collectorate Karimnagar.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar division, Karimnagar
4. Chintha Thirupathi, S/o. Late Chintha Kanakaiah, Pharmacist (S.C. Railway), R/o. Railway Hospital Kothagudem, Khammam district. *fSpOruOgUrc Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling the records relating to OA No. 190412006 dated 11.11.2011 consequently set aside the same and allow the OA by setting aside the memo No. 436984/0.1/2001-'12 dated 02.12.2014 issued by the respondent No.1 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in CA No.2 of 1992 dated 02.07.1993 and also to set aside the memo No.12023No.l.105-1 dated 19.4.2005 issued by the respondent No.
1 and direct the respondents reinstate the petitioner in to service and to pay all consequential benefits, such back wages, seniority and other attendant benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES-II Counsel for the Respondent No.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR STIAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI Writ Petition No.337O8 of 2OL7 ORDER : per Hon'bte Si Justice Abhinancl Kumar Shauiti) This Writ Petition is hled by the petitioner under Article-226 of the Constitution of India seeking a'Writ of Certiorai'by calling for records relating to the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribuna_l (for short, 'the Tribunal'), Hyderabad in O.A.No.1904 of 20O6, dated 1 1. 1 1.20 1 1 and to quash the same. 2.
Heard Mr. V. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-Il, appearing for the respondents.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was appointed AS Village Servant in pursuant to the notihcation, dated 02.O4.1992. However, at the instance of the 4th respondent the respondents have cancelled the appointment of the petitioner vide proceedings, dated 02.07.1993. The 4th
..)..
AKs,J & JAK,J wp 33708 2Ol7 respondent is the son of Sri. C. Kanakaiah, a village servant who passed away on 02.\2.1991. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer has issued a notification for appointment to the post of Village Servant and in pursuant to the said notihcation, the petitioner has responded to the notification and after undergoing regular selection process, he was appointed as Village Servant.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that Sri. C. Kanakaiah was earlier village servant and had two sons namely C. Sammaiah and C. Thirupathi, both of them are Government employees and they are not seeking compassionate appointment. However, the respondents have cancelled the appointment of the petitioner vide proceedings, dated o2.o7.t993 on ttre ground that whenever Village Servant expires, then authorities must wait for one (1) year, so as to enable the legal heirs to seek compassionate appointment and then issue a notification. The M.R.O has not waited for one year
AKS, ] & ]AK,J !r,p 33708 2017 and the appointment of the petitioner was also cancelled. If the MRO has followed the procedure, then the petitioner cannot be allowed to be blamed and moreover, the 4th respondent was not claiming compassionate appointment. The 4th respondent was already an employee as 'Pharmacist'in South Central Railway Hospital and when the 4th respondent was not claiming the compassionate appointment, then the question of cancelling the appointment of petitioner would not arise. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the Government aggrieved by the cancellation of appointment orders and the Government vide memo, dated O2.12.2OO4 was pleased to reject the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Later, the petitioner has challenged the cancellation of his appointment orders by the respondents before the Tribunal by hling O.A.No.1904 of 2006 and the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A vide orders, dated 1 1. 1 1.2O 1 1 without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner .
ffi;
\/-'\.:..
AKS,J & JAK,J rvp 33708 2O 17 n
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the 4th respondent is not seeking compassionate appointment, then there would be no need to cancel the appointment of the petitioner. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No. l9O4 of 2006, dated 11.11.2011 and further direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Village Servant and allow the writ petition
6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents had contended that appointment of the petitioner was cancelled way back in 1993. Later, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal in 2006 and the O.A itself was dismissed by the Tribunal in 2011. Finally, the petitioner has approached this Court in 2Ol7 and at this point of time, entertaining the writ petition may not arise and since, M.R.O has not followed the procedure and without waiting for one year from the date of death of
AKS,] & JAK,J wp 33708 2017 the Village Servant has issued a notification and in pursuant to the said notihcation only, the petitioner was appointed and that itself means that the petitioner's appointment is irregular and it is contrar5r to the Rules. However, the Tribunal was justihed in dismissing the O.A . Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the parties is of the view that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the 4th respondent has not claimed any compassionate appointment and in the absence of the 4th respondent in not claiming I I I t compassionate appointment, the respondents were not justified in cancelling the appointment of the petitioner and the petitioner got appointed in pursuant to the notification issued by the M.R.O. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the O.A, however, ends of justice would be met, if the writ petition IS disposed of directing the petitioner to submit fresh representation within two (21 weeks
AKs,] & JAK,J wp 33708 2017 -l seeking claim for appointment as Village Servant afresh and upon such representation being received, the respondents sha-ll consider the same and pass appropriate orders without being influenced by the observations made by the Government in their memo, dated 02.12.2OO4 and also without being influenced by the orders passed by the Tribunal
8. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
9.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. t sD/-N. SRlf{ARr ASSrsrANr -=;r-^- \ I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, I i
1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department. Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad , Hyderabad, Telangana State The Joint Collector, Karimn agar District, Collectorate Karimnagar The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar division, Karimnagar I I I Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-II One CC to SRI V.RAVI KUMAR, Advocate High lo Court for the State of Telangana at PUCI I I Hyderabad [OUT]
6. Two CD Copres I I BSR RK
CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 0910812023 sIA?
$E e q i os JAr'i 202[ o .L
ORDER
AT * * otr P s WP.No.33708 of 2017 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \