APHC010666392014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 12453/2014 Between: 1. P. RAGHUNADHA RAJU, S/O P. SRINIVASA RAJU, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC: SENIOR ASSISTANT (UNDER REVERSION) O/O EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTES SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KADAPA. 2. U. SRINIVASULU, S/O LATE TIRUPATAIAH, AGED 47 YEARS OCC: SENIOR ASSISTANT (UNDER REVERSION) O/O EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTES SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KADAPA. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE VICE CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P. SCHEDULED CASTES COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., 5TH FLOOR, DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA SAMKSHEMA BHAVAN, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD-500 028 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTES SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KADAPA - 516 004. 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTES SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KADAPA. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be 2 pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Order in Rc.No. 143/A1/2010 dated 08.03.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent reverting the petitioners from the post of Senior Assistants to their original posts, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of Rules 17 and 18 of the A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules 1996, violative of AP CS (CC&A) Rules 1991 and also violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the Petitioners under Articles 14, 16 and 21 and also violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and consequently quash and set aside the same and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 15650 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Order in Rc.No. 143/M/2010 dated 08.03.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent and continue to pay thesakriattached to the post of Senior Assistants, pending final disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. BHASKAR PREM KOUSHIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GANDRALA RATHNA KUMAR SC For APSCCFC LTD 2. B PRUDHVI KUMAR (SC FOR APSCCFC) The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned proceedings dated 08.03.2014, whereby the 2nd respondent reverted the petitioners from the post of Senior Assistants to their original posts. 2. It is submitted that the petitioners were initially engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1987 and the services of the petitioners were regularized vide proceedings dated 31.12.2002. It is submitted that the petitioners filed W.P.No.7484 of 1990 and this Court, on 27.07.1999, directed the respondents therein to consider the cases of the petitioners for extension of the benefit of regularization in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. 3. It is submitted that the 1st respondent, vide proceedings dated 11.04.2013, permitted promotions to all eligible employees working in the 2nd respondent Corporation. The 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 02.07.2013, promoted the petitioners as Senior Assistants. It is submitted that the petitioners worked as Senior Assistants from 02.07.2013 till 08.03.2014. 4. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent, vide R.C.No.143/A1/2010 dated 08.03.2014, had reverted the petitioners to the post of Junior Assistants. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent passed the impugned proceedings without mentioning any valid reason in the impugned order. It is further submitted that the petitioners are now on the verge of retirement and are still working as Junior Assistants. 4 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that a detailed counter is filed on behalf of the respondents and the attention of the Court is drawn to Para Nos.3 and 4 of the counter. It is submitted that the promotion of the petitioners was purely temporary and that the petitioners were liable to be reverted at any time without any notice. It is also submitted that the petitioners accepted the said condition and were promoted. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that there were no sanctioned vacant posts for promoting the petitioners as Senior Assistants. As such, the 2nd respondent passed the orders reverting the petitioners. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 7. The short point for consideration is whether the respondents are justified in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 08.03.2014. As seen from the proceedings dated 02.07.2013, whereby the 2nd respondent promoted the petitioners as Senior Assistants, the said proceedings would also indicate that the promotions are temporary and that the promoted employees shall be reverted at any point of time without any notice if their performance is found not satisfactory. The promotees were also placed on probation for a period of one (01) year within a continuous period of two (02) years from the date of their joining in the promotion post. 8. As seen from the impugned proceedings, the said proceedings refer to the explanation submitted by the Executive Director of the District SC Service 5 Co-operative Society Limited, Kadapa. On examining the explanation of the Executive Director, the 2nd respondent discussed the matter with him over phone on 05.03.2014 and instructed that the promotions given to the aforesaid two employees as Senior Assistants may be reverted to their original posts, as the matter has been pending with the Government for five years. On such considerations, the impugned proceedings were issued. 9. The impugned proceedings do not refer to any unsatisfactory performance of the petitioners which would entitle the respondents to pass the impugned proceedings. The proceedings dated 02.07.2013 promoting the petitioners also placed them on probation for a period of one (01) year. However, the impugned proceedings were issued even before completion of the probation period. It is pertinent to note that the proceedings dated 02.07.2013 placed the petitioners on probation in the post of Senior Assistants in the clear and existing vacancies in the office of the Executive Director, District SC Service Co-operative Society Limited, Kadapa. When the vacancies were available and promotions were accorded against clear vacancies, the respondents cannot claim that there were no clear vacancies and issue the impugned proceedings denying the benefit of promotion extended to the petitioners in pursuance of proceedings dated 02.07.2013. Therefore, the impugned proceedings deserve to be set aside. 10. The petitioners shall be treated as promoted as Senior Assistants and the respondents shall extend all the service benefits to the petitioners which are attributable to the post of Senior Assistants. 6 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 12.03.2026 PNS