HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 2562 OF 2005 25-09-2014 BETWEEN The Secretary, A.P Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (Registered), Hyderabad and another …Appellants And S. Mahender and another …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 2562 OF 2005
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
This writ appeal is filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in Writ Petition No. 19343 of 1988 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19- 08-2005 passed therein by the learned single Judge.
Briefly stated, the facts are that the 1st respondent herein (for short, ‘the respondent’) was initially appointed as a daily wage typist in the BC Corporation in the year 1986 and his services were regularised in that post. On 07-08-1986, he was appointed, obviously, on transfer as Junior Assistant in the 1st appellant – society. The District Collector happens to be the Ex-Officio Chairman of the BC Corporation as well as the concerned district unit of the appellant – society.
On 30-12-1987, the District Collector sought to repatriate the respondent to the BC Corporation. Challenging the same, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 16476 of 1991. The writ petition was allowed and a direction was also issued for regularisation of the services of the respondent in the appellant – society. Though the respondent was being continued in the appellant – society, his services were not regularised. Therefore, he filed Writ Petition No. 8428 of 1993. The writ petition was disposed of on 09-10-1993 with a direction to the appellants to take a decision. Ultimately, the services of the respondent were regularised in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994.
The respondent approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3884 of 1997 complaining that his case was not being considered for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. The writ petition was disposed of through order dated 24-12-1997 directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for promotion, duly verifying the seniority. At that stage, the Secretary of the appellant – society caused a detailed verification of the record and took the view that the very appointment of the respondent was contrary to law. Accordingly, he issued a show cause notice dated 21-04-1998 directing him to explain as to why regularisation of his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 212, be not cancelled. Thereafter, the representation made by the respondent was taken into account and through proceedings dated 22-06-1998, the 1st appellant cancelled the order of regularisation and repatriated the respondent to his parent organisation i.e., B.C Services Cooperative Society Limited. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 19343 of 1998. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and has set aside the order impugned therein.
Heard Sri Bhoopal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri J. Kanakaiah, learned counsel for the respondent.
The service particulars ever since the respondent joined the service of BC Corporation till the order challenged in the writ petition, are stated briefly in the preceding paragraphs. For all practical purposes, the appointment of the respondent in the appellant – Corporation was by way of transfer. Within one year from the date of transfer, he was sought to be repatriated and the same was challenged in Writ Petition No. 16476 of 1991. The order of repatriation was set aside. That was followed by filing of Writ Petition No. 8428 of 1993 in the context of regularisation. After verifying the matter in detail, the competent authority passed an order of regularisation in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 212. Ever since then, it was almost a smooth sailing for the respondent.
The only reason for him to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3884 of 1997 was that his claim for promotion was not being considered. This Court did not record any finding in that behalf. A direction was issued to the appellants, to consider his case. That occasion was availed by the Secretary to dig up the case of the respondent once again. Almost an exercise similar to the investigation in a criminal case was undertaken. A show cause notice was issued requiring the respondent to explain as to why the order of regularisation be not cancelled.
There would have been justification for the appellants to undertake such an exercise if there was any allegation that the respondent made any misrepresentation and obtained the orders of regularisation. Further, when the direction by this Court was to consider his case for promotion, there was absolutely no basis for the Secretary to exhibit his power, red tapism and one-upmanship in virtually browbeating the respondent directly, and this Court, indirectly. If in the appellant – organisation there are three to four court cases on an average for each employee, pending for a substantial period, it is either to the excessive dose of administration, or almost a lack of it. The result is that it became a fertile ground for litigation. The whole exercise undertaken by the appellant was in a bad taste. The learned single Judge has taken the correct view of the matter.
We do not find any grounds in the writ appeal to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 25-09-2014 ks