THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO. 192 of 2007 28-06-2010 BETWEEN;
D.Sudhasagar Reddy and others ...Petitioners vs.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue(Excise.I) Department and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.192 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the official respondents.
The order dated 11-08-2006 of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in O.A.No.5220 of 2004 and batch is impeached in this writ petition by the applicants in O.A.No.5007 of 2004.
The petitioners approached the Tribunal challenging Rule 3 of the A.P. Prohibition and Excise Subordinate Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.950, Revenue (Excise-I) Department, dated 28-11-1998, insofar as the Rule enables appointment by transfer of Junior Assistants to the category of Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector and challenging Note.1(aa) (a) and Note.1(b) of Rule 3 insofar as it enjoins filling up of the 8th, 11th, and 19th vacancies in the category of Excise Sub-Inspectors from the stream of Junior Assistants, by transfer.
The petitioners herein reiterate the same contentions as have not found favour in the Tribunal. The generic grounds for impeaching the impugned provisions are: (a) that by the provisions impugned the number of vacancies available to the promotees i.e., the petitioners’ category are reduced; that the concept of appointment to the category of Excise Sub- Inspector from the ministerial stream of Junior Assistants is introduced for the first time by the impugned Rule and that this diminutes the promotional chances for the petitioners’ category i.e., Excise Head Constables; that the pay scales of Excise Head Constables is higher when the pay scales of Junior Assistants/Typists and therefore un-equals are treated equally in the matter of promotion to the category of Excise Sub-Inspector.
The Tribunal in rejecting the applications correctly concluded that disparity in the pay scales is not always indicative of differential abilities or eligibility in the matter of promotional avenues and that the choice of feeder categories for appointment by Direct Recruitment, by Promotion or Recruitment by Transfer are essentially matters within the domain of the executive and such choices are not amenable to judicial review unless the petitioners establish clear irregularity or perversity in the administrative choices. The Tribunal rightly concluded that the petitioners failed to establish any such perversity in the executive choice of creation of an avenue for appointment of the post of Excise Sub-Inspector from the category of Junior Assistants in the ministerial services, warranting interference in judicial review.
In the considered view of this court, the reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal for rejecting the petitioners’ applications are impeccable and warrant no interference in judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution.
There are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.
GODA RAGHURAM,J R.KANTHA RAO, J 28th JUNE 2010.
TSNR