S.V.V.SATYANARAYANA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.24008 of 2024 ORDER:

1. The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the Proceedings vide Rc.No.13024/ 26/ C2/ 2024/ Zone-II (Confirmed) dated 13.08.2024 issued by Respondent No.2, which relates to the Petitioner, where under the name of the Petitioner was deleted from the seniority list, as illegal and arbitrary and for other consequential reliefs.

2. The facts in brief are as follows; The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short “APPSC”) had issued Notification No.45/2008, dated 31.12.2008 for recruitment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors (for short “MVIs”) in various Zones at that relevant point of time. The Petitioner applied for the said post being local in Zone-II. At the time of selections, the APPSC took a stand that a candidate shall be eligible for appointment provided there is an endorsement of Heavy Vehicle Driving License as on 31.12.2008.

3. Some of the candidates, who had taken Heavy Vehicle Driving License vide Endorsement dated 31.12.2008 and before the closure of the date of application i.e., 30.04.2009 filed O.A.Nos.6459 of 2010 and batch before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal 4 (for short “APAT”) contending that they are entitled to be treated as eligible in pursuance of the Notification No.45/2008, dated 31.12.2008, as they had obtained the endorsements prior to the date of closure of applications.

4. The APAT dismissed the said O.As vide Order dated

13.09.2011 and consequent thereto, the APPSC made selections and appointments were made terms of the selection process. Questioning the Order of APAT, W.P.Nos.30167 of 2011 and batch were filed before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court passed interim orders on 23.02.2012 directing not to fill up 16 posts in the concerned Zones, to which the Petitioners belong, pending further orders.

5. Subsequently, the Division Bench rendered a Judgment on

23.03.2012, but there was a difference of opinion between the two Judges. The case was referred to a third Judge and the third Judge rendered a Judgment on 29.06.2012 holding that the persons acquiring eligibility upto 13.04.2009 are also entitled to be considered for appointment.

6. The APPSC then carried the issue to the Supreme Court vide SLP.Nos.22972-22985 of 2012 and an interim order was passed on

17.08.2012 keeping the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court 5 in abeyance. In the light of the said interim order, the APPSC issued a selection Notification dated 24.08.2012 for 16 posts. The Petitioner was one of the candidates selected in pursuance of the said Notification and an order of appointment was issued by the Transport Commissioner vide Rc.No.2204/C3/2012, dated 26.09.2012 at Jaggaiahpeta and the Petitioner was continuing as AMVI in Zone-II ever since.

7. Subsequently, the Supreme Court vide Order dated 29.11.2016 confirmed the Order dated 29.06.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court and pursuant thereto, the APPSC issued revised Selection List on 06.03.2017 and in terms thereof one Sri Siva Ram Goud was appointed vide Memo No.13041/1/2017-TR-II(TR)-2, dated

22.03.2018 in Zone-II in place of the Petitioner and the Petitioner was re-allotted to Zone-IV. A similarly placed employee, whose appointment was annulled pursuant to the revised Selection List dated

06.03.2017 had filed W.P.No.23606 of 2018 before this Court and the same was allowed on 10.04.2019.

8. In purported compliance of the Orders of the Supreme Court the selection Notification was issued vide Letter No.786/RS-1/2008, dated

21.09.2017 selecting one Sri M. Sangeetha Rao for appointment in Zone-II. In the said letter, the APPSC suggested for revised allotment 6 of one Sri B. Vinod Kumar to Zone-IV and re-allotted one Sri N. Jagadeesh from Zone-V to Zone-IV.

9. The said individual questioned his re-allotment to Zone-V vide W.P.No.23606 of 2018 and the same was allowed by this Court on

10.04.2019. In the interregnum, one Sri Y.J. Pradeep Reddy, who was working as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in Zone-II had desired to go to Zone-IV and the said individual i.e. Y.J. Pradeep Reddy sought mutual transfer, which was accepted by the Government vide Proceedings dated 19.07.2021 and the Petitioner was permitted to join as AMVI in Zone-II.

10. A provisional seniority list was issued on 24.04.2022 and the Petitioner was shown at appropriate place i.e. at Sl.No.65 and a confirmed seniority list dated 03.11.2022 was already issued. In the light of the Order dated 10.04.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.23606 of 2018, the Petitioner contends that the re-allotment from Zone-II to Zone-IV was illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Order dated 10.04.2019 passed in W.P.No.23606 of 2018 and notwithstanding the condition imposed in the mutual transfer treating the Petitioner foregoing seniority of the Petitioner, the Petitioner is entitled for seniority as per the original appointment. 7

11. It is stated that the Petitioner was unaware of the Judgment dated 10.04.2019 passed in W.P.No.23606 of 2018 and applied for mutual transfer to Zone-II and since the transfer to Zone-IV is contrary to the Judgment of the Supreme Court, the Petitioner is entitled for seniority from the date of his appointment in Zone-II as AMVI.

12. In the Counter-Affidavit filed by Respondent No.2, it is stated that based on interim orders of the Supreme Court, the Petitioner along with others were selected subject to the outcome of SLPs before the Supreme Court. It is stated that the Supreme Court passed Orders on 29.11.2016 upholding the Judgment of the High Court. Pursuant to the Order of the Supreme Court, the eligible candidates were called in the ratio of 1:2 for interviews and after medical test and interview one Sri K. Siva Rama Goud was selected for appointment as AMVI in Zone-II under BC-B Local category against roster point No.85.

13. The Petitioner who was already appointed in Zone-II under roster point No.85 was re-allotted to Zone-IV under BC-B Non-Local category in Zone-IV. In Zone-IV one Sri Y. Siva Kumar, who was already selected, lost out his appointment. The revised selection list was accepted by the Government and accordingly proceedings were issued. 8

14. After transfer to Zone-IV, the Petitioner had sought for mutual transfer from Zone-IV to Zone-II and he had reported to duty in Zone-II on 21.08.2021 and was placed as junior most among AMVIs working in Zone-II as on the said date.

15. While so, the Writ Petition filed by Sri Y. Rajendra Prasad and 18 others with regard to seeking for review of panels from 01.09.2011 in various cadres including MVIs and AOs verifying the inadequacy of SC/ST employees in respective cadres and the said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the Respondents therein not to proceed with constitution of DPC without finalizing the seniority list.

16. W.A.Nos.346 and 587 of 2024 filed thereon were disposed of directing the preparation of provisional list of seniority in respective cadres and in consequence thereto, the seniority list of AMVIs in Zone-II was re-arranged as per merit for DR and as per date of joining for promotees from 2003 onwards and the Petitioner was placed at Sl.No.33 notionally as per his merit in Zone-II and his name was removed as his name to be reckoned afresh in the succeeding seniority list as per his re-joining date in Zone-II on 21.08.2021.

17. The learned Senior Counsel Sri M. Surendra Rao, assisted by Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the very allotment of Petitioner to Zone-II being in 9 contravention with the Judgment of the Supreme Court as held by this Court in W.P.No.23606 of 2018 cannot be taken note of and the Petitioner should be deemed to be continued in Zone-II.

18. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the name of the Petitioner from the seniority list was removed on the premise that he is being treated as a fresh candidate as on the basis of mutual transfer from the date of his re-joining in Zone-II on 21.08.2021 but the Respondents are not taking into consideration the very transfer from re-allotment from Zone-II to Zone-IV and therefore submits that the Petitioner is entitled for counting of his seniority from the date of his initial appointment in Zone-II as AMVI.

19. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II Mr. D. Vamsi Krishna appearing for the Respondents would submit that there should be consistency in the departmental action of the Petitioner having been re-allotted and submits that the Petitioner having accepted the re-allotment from Zone-II to Zone-IV cannot seek re-agitate the same under the guise of fixation of seniority list.

20. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the Petitioner without challenging the order of re-allotment from Zone-II to Zone-IV cannot seek for the said reliefs in this Writ Petition, 10 which are only consequential proceedings vis-à-vis the seniority, which is a consequential proceeding.

21. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the seniority being only a consequence of date of appointment and in the absence of any challenge the date of appointment, the present Writ Petition cannot be maintained. However, the contention was that the Petitioner having accepted the re-allotment from Zone-II to Zone-IV cannot turn around and question the same in this Writ Petition.

22. Heard the respective counsel.

23. One Sri N. Jagadeesh filed W.P.No.23606 of 2018 before this Court questioning the allotment from Zone-IV to Zone-V pursuant to the Judgment of the Supreme Court as referred above. The Division Bench of this Court after considering the submissions allowed W.P.No.23606 of 2018 on 10.04.2019 on the ground that the exercise of refusing selection in its entirety is contrary to the Judgment of the Supreme Court. Paragraph Nos.8, 9 and 10 thereof are extracted below; “8. During the course of hearing, it is submitted that the petitioner is being continued in Zone IV. The factual matrix which is not in dispute is already stated supra. While confirming the orders of the High Court, the 11 Supreme Court made it clear that the impugned orders that are passed by the High Court shall apply to the 16 vacancies in question and that the APPSC may complete the selection process for filling up 16 vacancies in question as directed in its order in any case not later than six months from the date of its orders. In this backdrop, the contents of the impugned letter, which are already extracted supra and which require a relevant reiteration need examination. The said contents read as under; "As well, an exercise has been carried out to revise the selections pursuant to Notification No.45/2008 taking into consideration of the earlier merit list and the supplemental merit list of the three (3) candidates, as qualified in all respects, without reference to limiting them to be considered against the 16 vacancies. Due to this exercise, no changes have taken place in earlier selections @ zone 1, Zone III and Zone VI. The candidate with Regd. No.45030046 selected earlier @ the zone-IV SC(NL) has been re- allotted the single Zone-V SC (NL). Ultimately, the candidate with Regd.no.45010272, who was selected earlier the single Zone-V SC(NL) lost his selection due to low merit. Therefore, his selection is treated as cancelled, because his appointment was subject to outcome of decision in WP.no.30167 of 2011 and batch." The orders of the Supreme Court apart, the High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by one Simhagiri viz., WP.no.22101 of 2012 and directed the APPSC to consider the candidature of the said petitioner also along with others in terms of the cut off dates confirmed by the Supreme Court in relation to the 16 vacancies which are to be filled up in terms of the Supreme Court order. In the teeth of the orders of the Supreme Court, the contents of the letter, dated 21.09.2017, stating that an exercise has been carried to revise the selections pursuant to notification no.45 of 2008 taking into consideration of the earlier merit list and the supplemental merit list of the three candidates as qualified 12 in all respects without reference to limiting them to be considered against 16 vacancies is quite contrary to the orders of the Supreme Court and is, therefore, unjust, not legal, unfair and unsustainable.

9. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed as any action taken in violation of an order of a Court or by committing breach of an order of a Court should not be permitted to hold good. Our above view finds support from the ratio in All Bengal Excise Licensees Association Vs. Raghabendra Singh and others [AIR 2007 SC 1386] wherein the Supreme Court held as under: "A party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing breach of an interim order and escape the consequences thereof... the wrong perpetrated by the respondents in utter disregard of the order of the High Court should not be permitted to hold good.”

10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. It is needless to state that the respondents 1 to 4 are required to follow the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in letter & spirit.”

24. The grievance of the Petitioner is that in the light of Order of the Division Bench of this Court referred above, the allotment to Zone-IV cannot be sustained and the Petitioner should be continued in Zone-II. This aspect was not specifically dealt with in the impugned order by the Respondents or in the Counter-Affidavit. The Counter-Affidavit is more with regard to mutual transfer of the Petitioner and the Orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.6544 of 2024 and W.A.Nos.346 and 13 587 of 2024. Apart from that, K. Siva Rama Goud, who was selected as AMVI in Zone-II under BC-B Local category against roster point No.85 in place of Petitioner is not a party to this case.

25. In the light of above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions; (i) The Respondent-authorities are directed to consider the correctness of re-allotment of the Petitioner to Zone-IV vide Memo No.13041/1/2017-TR-II(TR)-2, dated 22.03.2018 in the light of the Order of the Division Bench of this Court passed in W.P.No.23606 of 2018, dated 10.04.2019 and pass appropriate orders after issuing notice in writing to the persons likely to be effected, as expeditiously as possible, (ii) No order as to costs.

26. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Date: 29.12.2025 IS ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 14 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.24008 of 2024 Dated: 29.12.2025 IS