The guidelines for final allocation of State cadre employees under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014, approved by the Government of India, were communicated under G.O.Ms.No.312 dated 30.10.2014 for information and further action. In terms of Para 7 of the said guidelines falling under the title Allocation of Posts, the Government of India made it clear that allocable posts included vacant posts. Para 18 enumerates the principles guiding the allocation of employees. Clause (f) thereof is relevant and reads as under: f) The allocation shall be done in order of seniority as available on June 01, 2014. Those who have opted, who are local candidates relatable to the State to which they have opted, shall, in order of their seniority, be considered for allocation first. If allocable posts in that category remain, then, others who have opted to the State may be allocated in order of seniority. If still posts remain allocation will be made in reverse order of seniority. Clause (l) thereof is also of relevance and reads as under: l) Spouses in State cadre in Government or in State Government institutions, local bodies and those who are deemed allocated as per the Act, shall as far as practicable, be allotted to the same State, after considering options made by them and their local candidature. Spouses who are local candidates of a State shall be allocated to that State. Spouses who belong to different States may be allocated after considering their options.= In terms of the definition of allocable posts, vacancies are included therein as already stated supra. Clause (f) of Para 18 specifically states that if allocable posts in the category remain after local candidates relatable to that State have been considered, then others who opt for that State may be allocated in order of seniority. This part of clause (f) of Para 18 seems to have been completely overlooked by the authorities. Thus, when there are vacancies available at Visakhapatnam in the cadre of Principal, the rejection of the petitioners request for allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh and for her retention at Visakhapatnam is wholly unsustainable.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE N.BALAYOGI                

WRIT PETITION NO.23775 OF 2016    

27-02-2017

Dr.S.shoba Rani .. Petitioner

The State Reorganization Department rep. by its Secretary, General
Administration (SR) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad  and others..
Respondents

Counsel for petitioner: Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy

Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: Government Pleader for Services-I
                                (Andhra Pradesh)
                                       
Counsel for respondents 4 & 5: --
Counsel for respondent 6   :  Assistant Solicitor General for
                              India

<Gist:

>Head Note:    

? CASES REFERRED:    

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        
AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE N.BALAYOGI      

WRIT PETITION NO.23775 OF 2016    

O R D E R
(Per Honble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)
       
        The petitioner is the applicant in O.A.No.2358 of 2016 on the
file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for
brevity, the Tribunal).  By order dated 24.06.2016, the Tribunal
admitted the O.A. and while ordering notice to the respondents,
directed that the final allocation of the petitioner to the State of
Telangana would be subject to the final result in the O.A. Aggrieved
by the denial of interim relief, the petitioner is before this Court.
      The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer at Kurnool in Zone
IV on 20.07.1992 and was thereafter transferred to Visakhapatnam
in Zone I on her own request, as her husband was working at BHEL,
Visakhapatnam.  She thereupon took the last rank in terms of
seniority in the cadre of Lecturers at Visakhapatnam. She was
promoted as a Principal in September, 2012, basing upon her
reduced seniority.  After bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra
Pradesh, the authorities sought her option for allocation to one of the
newly formed States. Guidelines in this regard were communicated
vide G.O.Ms.No.312 dated 30.10.2014.  The total number of posts of
Principals were 256, of which 140 were allotted to the new State of
Andhra Pradesh and 116 to the State of Telangana.  Admittedly, 23
vacancies in the said post fell to the lot of the State of Andhra
Pradesh, while 9 vacancies were in the State of Telangana.
      The petitioner opted for the State of Andhra Pradesh, as she
had herself sought transfer to Zone I on spousal grounds and was
still continuing in service there.  Despite her option and the
availability of vacancies, the Committee constituted by the
Government of India tentatively allotted her to the State of Telangana
in the list dated 02.06.2015.  Aggrieved by this allotment, she filed
O.A.No.5088 of 2015 before the Tribunal, wherein interim orders
were passed directing the authorities to maintain status quo.
Pursuant thereto, she continued to work at Visakhapatnam in Zone I
in the new State of Andhra Pradesh.  However, during the pendency
of this O.A., final allocation orders were passed on 10.11.2015,
whereby she was again allocated to the State of Telangana.  The
pending O.A. was closed in the light of this development. However,
aggrieved by her final allocation, she filed O.A.No.2358 of 2016.  As
the Tribunal did not grant her interim relief and made her allocation
subject to the result of the O.A., she filed the present writ petition.
      The Assistant Secretary to the Government, General
Administration Department, Andhra Pradesh, filed a counter-affidavit
stating as follows:  The Government of India approved the guidelines
for allocation of the State employees between the successor States of
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.312 dated  
30.10.2014.  In terms of Para 19 of the said guidelines, employees
were to be allocated only after taking options from them.  The
petitioner, a local of the State of Telangana, exercised her option to be
allocated to the new State of Andhra Pradesh.  She was however
tentatively allocated to the State of Telangana.  She put in a
representation stating that her studies were in Telangana but she
was appointed as a Lecturer in Kurnool in the erstwhile State of
Andhra Pradesh, in September, 1992, wherefrom she sought transfer
on spousal grounds to Visakhapatnam in Zone I.  She further stated
that her husband belonged to Andhra Pradesh and was working in a
non-transferable post in BHEL at Visakhapatnam where her sons
were also undergoing their education.  She pointed out that
vacancies were available at Visakhapatnam and sought
accommodation there.  The Assistant Secretary admitted that 23
vacancies in the posts of Principal were allotted to the State of
Andhra Pradesh along with 117 filled posts.
      The Under Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training,
Government of India, filed a counter wherein he stated thus:  Though
the petitioner was appointed in Zone IV in 1992 and was transferred
to Zone I at her request, she thereafter came to be promoted and as
on 02.06.2014, the appointed day under the Andhra Pradesh
Reorganization Act, 2014, she was holding a State cadre post.  She
was therefore allocated to the State of Telangana considering her
local candidature as per Para 18(f) of the guidelines.  He further
stated that her request for retention in Zone I under spouse category
could not be considered as her husband was employed in BHEL, a
Central Government Public Sector Undertaking.  As regards the
petitioners objection to her tentative allocation to the State of
Telangana, he stated that the Committee, in its meeting held on
07.08.2015, held that as there was no vacancy to adjust her against
the filled posts in Andhra Pradesh, her representation could not be
considered.  In terms thereof, she was finally allocated to the State of
Telangana.  He however admitted that out of the total sanctioned
strength of 256 posts in the cadre of Principal, 140 posts (filled 117 +
vacant 23) were allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh and 116
posts (filled 90 + vacant 26) were allocated to the State of Telangana.
He therefore sought to justify the final allocation of the petitioner to
the State of Telangana.
      Heard Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General
appearing for the Government of India, and the learned Government
Pleader for Services appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh and
its officials.
      The guidelines for final allocation of State cadre employees
under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014, approved by the
Government of India, were communicated under G.O.Ms.No.312  
dated 30.10.2014 for information and further action.  In terms of
Para 7 of the said guidelines falling under the title Allocation of
Posts, the Government of India made it clear that allocable posts
included vacant posts.  Para 18 enumerates the principles guiding
the allocation of employees.  Clause (f) thereof is relevant and reads
as under:
      f) The allocation shall be done in order of seniority as
available on June 01, 2014. Those who have opted, who are
local candidates relatable to the State to which they have
opted, shall, in order of their seniority, be considered for
allocation first.  If allocable posts in that category remain, then,
others who have opted to the State may be allocated in order of
seniority.  If still posts remain allocation will be made in
reverse order of seniority.

      Clause (l) thereof is also of relevance and reads as under:
      l) Spouses in State cadre in Government or in State
Government institutions, local bodies and those who are
deemed allocated as per the Act, shall as far as practicable, be
allotted to the same State, after considering options made by
them and their local candidature.  Spouses who are local
candidates of a State shall be allocated to that State.  Spouses
who belong to different States may be allocated after
considering their options.

        It may also be noted that in the case of a spouse of an All India
Service officer who belongs to a State cadre or is an employee of a
State Government institution, such a spouse is to be allocated as
desired to that State where the All India Service officer is allocated
[Clause (k)].
        The basic principle underlying these guidelines is therefore to
protect and keep together employed spouses who would otherwise be
separated owing to the allocation undertaken pursuant to the
bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh.  Keeping the
spirit and intent underlying this principle, the guidelines should be
implemented.  Merely because Clause (l) does not speak of employees
working in Central Government Public Sector Undertakings, it does
not mean that spouses of such employees, who are working in the
State cadre, are not to be accommodated where they are working.
Clause (l) states in no uncertain terms that allocation shall, as far as
practicable, be made so as to keep the spouses together.  The import
and intent of bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh is
not to break up marriages.  The authorities therefore have to
conceive, formulate and implement the guidelines keeping this in
mind.  Any shortfall in the guidelines in this regard cannot be taken
literally to mean that spouses, whose cases do not fall within the four
corners of the instructions as set out therein, are to be left out in the
cold and must suffer marital separation.
      In the present case, the husband of the petitioner is working in
a non-transferable post in BHEL, a Central Government Public Sector
Undertaking, at Visakhapatnam.  Her children are also studying
there.  Significantly, she already suffered loss of seniority earlier to
keep her family together.
        This being the factual situation, the action of the authorities in
turning a blind eye to her plight and her fervent request for allocation
to Visakhapatnam cannot be countenanced.  It is not in dispute that
vacancies in the posts of Principal are available in the State of
Andhra Pradesh and more particularly, at Visakhapatnam.  In terms
of the definition of allocable posts, vacancies are included therein as
already stated supra.  Clause (f) of Para 18 specifically states that if
allocable posts in the category remain after local candidates
relatable to that State have been considered, then others who opt for
that State may be allocated in order of seniority.  This part of
clause (f) of Para 18 seems to have been completely overlooked by the
authorities. Thus, when there are vacancies available at
Visakhapatnam in the cadre of Principal, the rejection of the
petitioners request for allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh and
for her retention at Visakhapatnam is wholly unsustainable.
      The writ petition is accordingly allowed.  There shall be a
direction to the respondents to reconsider the final allocation of the
petitioner by giving effect to Para 18(f) of the guidelines in true letter
and spirit keeping in mind the principle underlying such allocation
on spousal grounds.  This exercise shall be completed expeditiously
and, in any event, not later than four weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.  Pending this exercise, the petitioner shall be
retained at Visakhapatnam.  Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed in the light of this final order.  No order as to costs.

______________________  
SANJAY KUMAR, J  
____________________  
N.BALAYOGI, J  
27th FEBRUARY, 2017

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.