'1 . K. Ravi Kumar v. c) Consequently

Order

Witlt lhrt C()ns(,nt of tltc, 1r;rrties, tlte Writ Pctition is Lirkcn up [or disl>oserl.

2. Aggr-ievcd b1, lhc :rction of rcspondents in terminating the sen,iccs of tl'rc petitioners, thc prcsctlt Writ Petitiorl is filed.

3. IIeard tlrr: lc:rrrrcrl <;ounse i hrr thr: pctitioncls and lc:rrncd Govcrnntent Plcacler li.,r Scn,ir:cs I lt1;pcrrring lor thc rcspondcnts

4. Whcn thc milttor is takcn r-r1r lirr lrr:aring, the lcarncd counscl for thc petiLioncrs has subnritlcd that the issue raiscd in the prcsenL Writ [)ctrlion is squlrrclr. coverccl lry tl.re order passcd by this Court in W.[). No.31901 ol 2O18 datcd 03. LO.2O23. Learned counsel has furthcr subnriLtcd that since VRA posts are abolished, suiLablc direclion nta\' lre qivt:n to the rcspondents to take appropriatc decisior.r for- rc-cnuergcrncnt ol the pctitioncrs.

5. Thc above made submission is not scriously disputed by the learned Governmeltt Pleaclcr altpt:aring for the rcspondents.

6. In vierv of thc above and for thc rcasons alike in the order I I r, PK,.J Ul, ll55 202{ r 1' drte rl 03. O.2C)23 passed in W P. No.3190 L of .2' 8 hr: inr lrugned prrrcr:r'r lir r ls bcaring Rc. No.A/-)sO9l2O()5, ri IC' It).1.1.2023, issuccl ir,,' r-i'spondcnt No.'1 is st't ,tsiilc, ittsll:r: S . r( i)clrtroltcrs r1l (: conccr rle{1, irnci rt:sponcLr:trt No. I ts c.lirt'i:tL ii , iL , r f)llt 1rl)r iatc rLrrr;isiorr orr lhe lc cngalgelltent of lltr: ;rt:tiLI,,tL,' 'r r.r ccro tcla r tcc ,,i'rth lirrr, r s r:xpcditiousll'as possilrlt', llrcli'rrlrir . 'it lr in rr pcriori oI eirghl rr,ecks l-r-orn thc: date ol rcceil-rt of :r co[)\ o[ 1l ; T;I CI, T 7- Accr r-clingly, thc Writ I)ctition is rtllorvtrl \ si'r ll;tttc'rrrLs p( {itir)ns lrerrding, il any, siiall strittd c).ost:cl i L:r' ,.lrall lrc ncr olr ler :ts to c()sts. //TRUE COPY// :;I}/. P. F'ONNA KRISHNA ,\ i sl-c T,{NT REGISTRAR G SE:CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 fhe Prrncipirl Secretary to the Governnlent' Revu I I f elunoana Secretariat. Hyderabad ff,e C"nier Commissionerbt Land Aomrnistratron ut i r.fi.orffv Statiorr Road, Abids, HydcrabaC 5CC01 : trre bistiict Collector, IVlahcbubnaga'. Otlrce o' tn' lVlahabubnagar lc l)a r tnrerri, State of ,srte /,nnapurtla Hotel, ller;to-ate,

a ii-r" irr,riiiOii, tr,trtOrt at Ir,4andal, Jogulamba^Gadw; I )rstrici S One CC tc Sri Sriram Polali Advocate [OPUC] 6 i;; ca;t. ciF"l.SL*ii", i,uigt cburtjorthe sr:r :of lr:langa-na [o^UT],, " iar"ng *itn tne copy"oi6ra.l oit"a 03.10.2023 i r ',fv.P.No.31901 of 2018) 7. Two CD CoPies I\4BC PVL \.-K HIGH COURT DATED: 0711012025 a=-.-= 7 irHE J'4 1 o O (tlt 9 7 t]iT 2l 25 ^! l' : ORDER WP.NI> 3255 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WFIIT PETITION WITF OUT COSTS ..9k4 S6- 3 THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION o.31901 0F 2()1a ORDER: Heard Mr.P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-Il for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed praying to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.A7 /4273/2009, dated 23.03.2018 issued by the 1't respondent in so far as it relates to terminating the services of the petitioners w.e.f.,

01.05.2012 and not paying salary to the petitioners from

01.05.2012 onwards as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and mala fide, discloses non application of mind and unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same in so Far as the petitioners are concerned with a direction directing the respondents to forthwith allow the petitioners to continue in service as Village Revenue Assistants in the posts which the petitioners are holding prior to issuing impugned proceedings No. A7/4273/2009, dated 23.03.2018 of the 1't respondent 4 si\.J and Further direct the respondents to forthwiil pay salary to the petitioners from 01.05.2012 onwards. 3 ) The case of the petitioners, in brit:l , as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by t 1e petitioner in support of the present writ petition, is a s follows: a) Befcre bifurcation of State of Andh -i, Pradesh in pursuance of A.P. Re-organisation Act, 2014 tr I united State of Andhra Pradesh issued AP (Andhra Area) !lllage Officers Services Rules, 1969 in G.O.Ms.No.608 Revenui. Dep,rrtment, dated 26.(|6.1969 invoking the power under prc,riso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India regulating the service conditions of Village Officers, who are cal e d as Village Revenue Cfficers and Village Servants, who arc rorry c.alled as Village Revenue Assistants including these posts under clause i and clause 2 of the said Rules. b) Subsequently, united State of Andhra Pra I :sh issued AP (Telangana Area) Village Officers Services P.u ies, :978 in G.O.Ms.No.1293 Revenue (H) Department, dat€c 26.07.1978, which are similar rules to the earlier G.O Ms. No 608 and the said Rules came into force w.e.f., 07.t2.t977. 5 c) The Government issued AP Village Revenue Assistants Service Rules, 2005 and substituted the word'Village Servant' to that of 'Village Revenue Assistants' in G.O.Ms.No.2176, Revenue Department, dated 05.12.2011. As per Rule 4 of the A.P. Village Servant Service Rules, 2005, the Village Servant shall be appointed for every village or part oF village or group of villages and as per Rule 5, the MRO/Tahsildar shall be the appointing authority. d) The petitioners are fully eligible and are qualified for appointment to the post of Village Servant and they were also appointed by the competent authority and the petitioners were continuing as Village Revenue Assistant's for that village till the impugned order by proceeding No. A7/4273/2OO9 dated 23.03.2018, had been issued. e) At the instance of one outside leader, with his influence, appointment orders were issued to 132 candidates without following the procedure and submitted salary bills of the petitioners'as well as some other Village Revenue Assistants, who are working not only from 2005 but also prior to 2005. f) Because of the above mentioned irregularities committed by some of the officers in connivance with private individuals or self style leaders, the petitioners became 6 si-r victims and that the petitioners have not re( eived salaries from 23.03.2008 despite assuming duties. herei'ore, the petitioner:r approached the 1't respondent rerlrresting to pay sa la ries. g) As per the advice given by the Pr,:r;ident of the Association, the petitioners approachel the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and that the Tribunal I antecl interim order directing the respondents to continue lhe applicants therein in service and also pay salary for tr r work done. Subsequer,tly, the 1't respondent filed counter r the OAs filed by the pe'titloner stating that the President rf AP Village Servants Association made representation on 30.C,1.2010, same was received on 06.02.2010 and the sarl r was sent to CCLA and Collector, Mahabubnagar to exarn ne the said representa:ion and furnish detailed report ilrrd submitted report on 17.11,.2011. In the year 2012-2014, the 1't respond(rrt paid salary h) till 30.04..10 12, though the petitioners are (,ntitled from 01.05.2012 till 23.03.2018, i.e., till the issLance of the irnpugned order. Hence, this writ petition is file(J i) Furthermore, impugned proceedings dat(:c 23.03.2018 issued by tne 1't Respondent in so far as it rel,lres to paying 7 salary bill 30.04.2012 and terminating the services oF the Petitioners with effect from 30.04.2012 stating that the Petitioners are deemed to be terminated after 30.04.2018 in so far as the Petitioners are concerned is highly arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and unconstitutional violating Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. j) Alongside, the l't Respondent included the names of the Petitioners in the provisional seniority list in the cadre of Village Revenue Assistants issued in proceedings No. A7/71,69/2012, dated 23.I0.2017 but while issuing final seniority list by proceedings No. A7/1169/2012, dated

17.O2.2018 the 1't Respondent had not included the names of the Petitioners which is also irregular and illegal violating Articles 14, 16 and 2l of the constitution of India that too without giving any notice and opportunity which is nothing but in clear violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dated 23.03.2018 passed by 1't respondent along with the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The counter affidavit of the Respondent No. 1, in brief, is as follows u SNJ a) The petitioners worked beyond 01.05 2012 is not correct and the same was not supported by ar| documentary evidence. The initial appointment of the petitior :rs is irregular as they were appointed during the ban pr:r iod bry direct recruitment. The report of the concerned I a rsildar shows that all the posts of VRAs were fallen vacar t, wlrere the petitioners are working. As per Gover r ment Memo No.BB193/VO .I/97-4, dated 12.10.1998, ther: is a ban on appointment of Village Servants by direct recrtl ment. As per AP (Telangana Adapted) Village Revenue Cf rcers Service Rules 199[], the post of Village Servant (VRA) s a part time job and the petitioners herein have been appoinled during the ban perioC by direct recruitment and the'i,fore alleged appointment orders issued in favour oF the r ttitiorers are proved as bogus and irregular. b) As per rule (24) of AP (Telangana Ada:ted) Village Servants Rules 2005, the MRO concerned ;l,all nraintain service particulars of Village Servants (VRA'S) ,) each viilage and prepare salary bills of each village base<l on the duty certificate issued by the concerned Panchayat Secretary and that (157) Village servants (VRA's) including the petitioners 9 have been appointed during the ban period. In pursuance of the orders dated 03.02.2016 in O.A No 9397/2011 with VMA No 675/2012 of the APAT, Hyderabad the concerned Tahsildars have been directed to claim salaries of ( 157) village servants (VRA's) and to pay to them who were appointed during the ban period up to 30.04.2012. c) Furthermore, the petitioners herein have been appointed irregularly during the ban period. The enquiry reports submitted by the Tahsildars concerned revealed that though the posts of the petitioners were not notified for direct recruitment, those posts had fallen vacant since 01.05.2012. There is no record to show that they have discharged duties as VRA's after 01.05.2012 till date. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for payment of salary for the period for which they have not worked. d) ThereaFter, some of the VRAs appointed during the ban period, approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.9351 of 2011 and obtained interim orders dated 07.72.20L1 to pay salaries and continue them in the service. The Government vide Memo No 88193/VO.l/97-4, dated 12.10.1998 have imposed ban on appointment of VRA's. The appointment of petitioners as VRA's has taken place after issue of ban orders by the SN,J government. Therefore the appointment of th: petitloners as VRA's is irreqular and contrary to the ban orde -: issued by the govern ment e) Furtiermore, as per the enquiry repofts submitted by the Tahsillars concerned the posts of the pet,-'ioners where they are said to be working are fallen vacant There is no record to show that the petitioners have been vrorking AS VRA'S beyond 30.04.20L2. The appointment of 11e petitioners as VRA's itself is irregular and bogus, as tlr( y have been appointed during the ban period. All (157) VRA': lncluding the petitioners herein have been irregularly appo r ted as VRA's during the ban period. It is further submitt: I that as on

30.04.201?-, that the posts of the petitione-: rlere fallen vacant. The payment of salary to the petitioner; rherefore has been restricted up to 30.04.2072. f) The posts as claimed by the petitione-! have fallen vacant, neither no fresh recruitment has been rnade nor the petitioners have been continued in the said postr . There is no record to show that the petitioners have beer :ontinued as VRA's in their respective villages beyond 30.0.1..2012 and up to 23.03.2018 11 S) Aggrieved by the orders passed in O.A 9350/20L1, 9391/2011 and 9351/201 1, the respondents filed WP No.8702 of 2074 before the High Court and that the High Court granted interim suspension of the orders of the Tribunal. During pendency of the above writ petition, VMA No.675 of 2012 in O.A.No.9351 of 2oll had been filed and the Tribunal observed that the appointments of the applicants cannot be gra nted a nd so fa r as continuation of the applicants is concerned, it is for the authorities to see whether they are legally appointed or not. h) Moreover, there is no record to show that the petitioners have been working as VRA'S at their respective villages and all the posts oF the petitioners had fallen vacant. Therefore, the petitioners cannot seek any relief for inclusion of their names in the Final Seniority list of VRA's issued in Proceedings No. A7l1169/2012, dated L7.02.2018 of the 1't respondent - District Collector, Mahabubnagar, and as per the enquiry reports furnished by the Tahsildars concerned there is no record of attendance in respect of the writ petitioners maintained by the concerned VRO'S and that they are not working as VRA'S at their respective villages. The posts oF t2 VRA's of the petitioners have fallen vacant frc, n 01.05.2012 onwards and that the writ petition: s are not presently working as VRA's as contended in tlrr writ petition. Moreover, the counter also further stated that t )e inf,lrmation sent by the Collector to the Secretary, CCLA vir r: letter dated

17.17.2011 is only mere sending informa:i rn to higher authority and does not give any right to th,r applicants to continue as Village Revenue Assistants and ( aim salaries. Hence, th€r Writ Petrtion is devoid of merits anil is liable to be d ism issed . PERUSED THE RECORD :

5. The order impugned of the 1't respcrdent dated

23.O3.2018, reads as under: "Through the reference 1'r cited, ref. No.A2l550/2008, dated 11.11.2009, i has been brought to the notice of CCLA that in c: tain Districts Village Servants were appointed regular,'( ontract basis (through out-sourcing) in spite of Ban cr lers vide Act 2/ L994 and informed to treat those app rintments as irregular. Through this office ref.No. A7/4273/2009, dated 17.11.2011 a detailed report trr the CCLA, A.P. Hyderabad had been submitted ;tating that 13 certain Tahsildars have appointed (225) VRAs during the ban period and requested to consider for release of honorarium and submit further proposals to the Govt. for regularization of services ot (225) VRA's. While the position stands so, some of VRAS fited O.A.No.9351 of 2011 before APAT. The APAT in its interim orders of 07.12.2011 ordered that pending further orders in the O.A. directed to continue the VRAs in their respective places unit further orders and pay the salaries to the applicants for the period they worked. Basing on the above orders, the Govt. in Rev. (VA) Dept. memo No.50896/VA-7/207r, dated 19.12.2017 requested to take necessary action on the orders of APAT and send action taken report to the Govern m en t. Through this office ref .No.A7/427312009, dated 04.09.2072 a report was submitted to CCLA stating that the proposals sent earlier is basing on the reports of Tahsildars only on verification of records. The appointments made in the ban period are fictitious. The CCLA, Hyderabad in ref .No.A2/245/20L0 dated 08.10.2012 informed that the Government have examined the matter in consultation with Finance Department and permitted the District Collector vide Govt. Memo No.2233lVA-1/20L2, daled 07.07.2072 to pay honorarium to 157 VRAs who are reportedly not being paid now for the period they worked. l4 SN,.J The Dist. Collector on behalf of tl e Gc,vt. filed W.P.No.B70212014 before the Hon'bl: High Court against the orders of APAT holding tha the Hon'ble APAT is literally based on the letter prr I :sed to have submitted to the CCLA on fraudulent nr, nner without knowledge of the District Collector and he orders of APAT is perverse, in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to the law. The High Court of A.P. admitted rie W.P. and grant.ed interim suspension in orders of t\i .qT. The case is pending before Hon'ble High Court, A.P , "iyderabad. While the position stands thus, sonr of VRA filed VMA No.675l2012. The APAT in its ordr in O.A. No. 9391/201,L with VMA No.675/2012, r:.03.t12.2016 observed that, with regard to the a r rointnrent of applicants the same cannot be grantec n so iar as continuation of the applicants is concernr:: it is for the authorlties to see whether they are legall/ rppointed as per the rules governing the recruitmen, and decide whether to continue them or to dispen: e with their services in accordance with rules. The APAT while disposing the OA directed to pay salaries to the applicants who tr: ve actuaily joined and worked as Village Servant:; Dursuant to their appointments for the period c r ring which they have actually worked. As such through the reference I 1th cited it was requested to report the particula rs of VRAs 15 appointed during the ban period and worked in pursuant of orders. Most of the vacancies of VRAs were notified for direct recruitment in the year 2012. The direct recruitment VRAs joined duty on O1.O5.2O12. As such the payment of Honorarium to the VR-As appointed during the ban period is restricted upto 30.o4.2012. I am therefore request you to claim and pay the Honorarium to the VRAS appointed during the ban period up to 3O.O4.2O12 or their actual period of working whichever is less duly informing in writing that their services are deemed to be terminated after 30.04.2OL2."

6. Proceedings of the 1't respondent dated L9.O1.2OL7, reads as under: "It is to inform that, certain Tahsildars of erstwhile Mahabubnagar District have appointed Village Servants (VRAs) by notification on temporary basis by direct/medical invalidation during the ban period. Out ot (225) VRAs honorarium to (68) VRAs are being paid and (157) VRAs are not paid honorarium. These (157) VRAs filed O.A.No.9350/2011, 935t/2011, 9391/201r and 1565/2012 before the Hon'ble APAT requesting for payment of honorarium. O.A.No.9391/2011 - O.A.No.9350/2011 - 31 s3 16 SN,J 18 43 145 Total O.A.No.9351/2011 - O.S.No.1565/2012 - - The CCLA, Hyderabad in ref.No.A2/55O/2OOA dated 11.11.2009 informed that, ii has been brought to the notice of CCLA thal in certain Districts appointment of Village Se vants were made on regula r/contract basis (t rrough out- sourcing) in spite of Ban orders vi .le Act 2 of 1994. The appointment of VRAs can t e treated as irreg u Ia r. Through the office ref.No.AT r 427i1/2OO9, dated 17.11.2O11 a detailed report t,r the CCLA, A.P. Hyderabad has been submittec ;tatiing that certain Tahsildars have appointed 225 ) VRAs during the ban period, The services rf VRAs are essential in the Village Administratior. The VRAs will attend all kinds of Revenue works and serve the notices of land revenue anci rdentify the beneficiaries in different developme rt schemes conducted by the Govt. and identif,, the Govt. lands and also discharge police duties in the village. Without VRAs in the village . the VROs cannot discharge their duties. Ther *.fore, it is requested that VRAs who are not r€ ceiving the honorarium may be considered for release of honorarium and submit further propc sals to the Government for regularization of servir es of (225) VRAS. t7 While the position stands so/ some of VRAS filed O.A. No.9351 of 2011 before APAT. The APAT in its interim orders of 07.12.2011 ordered that pending further orders in the O.A. direction to continue the VRAS in their respective places unit further orders and pay the salaries to the applicants for the period they worked. Basing on the above orders, the Govt. in Rev. (VA) Dept. memo No.50896/VA -l/2011, dated L9.l2.2OOl requested to take necessary action on the Orders Of APAT and send action taken report to the Govern ment. Through this office ref. No.A7/4273/2009, dated 04.09.20t2 a report was submitted to CCLA stating, that the proposals sent earlier is basing on the reports of Tahsildars only on verification of records. The appointments made in the ban period are fictitious. The CCLA, Hyderabad in ref. No.A2/245120L0, dt.08.10.2012 informed that the Govt. have examined the matter in consultation with Finance Department and permitted the Dist. Collector vide Govt. Memo No.2233lVA-L/2O12, dt.07.07.2072 to pay honorarium to L57 VRAs who are reportedly not being paid now for the period they worked. The District Collector on behalf of the Govt. filed W.P. No.8702/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court against the orders of APAT holding that the Hon'ble APAT literally based on the letter proposed to have submitted to the CCLA on fraudulent manner without knowledge of the Dist. Collector and the orders of APAT 18 is perverse, in excess of jurisdiction and c. rntrary to the law. The High Court of A.P. admitted he V/,P. and gran[ed interim suspension on orders of .\'AT. -[he case is pe.ding before Hon'ble High Court, A.P, lyderabad. While the position stands thus, sorr : of \/RA filed VMA No.675/20L2. The APAT in i's o:der in O.A.1"10.9391/2011 with VMA \o.615/2012, dt.03.02.2016 observed that, with r: rard to the appo ntment oF applicants cannot be gr,,nted, so tar conti.uation oF the applicants is concern l . it is for the authorities to see whether they are legally appointed as per t.he rules governing the recruitme r and decide whether to continue them or to dispe r e with their services in accordance with rules. The APAT while disposing the OA directed to pay salaries to the applicants who hr,ve actually joined and worked as Village Servant; pursuant to their appointments for the period <ir rring which they have actually worked. In view of the above orders of lhe Hon'ble APAT, the list of VRAs reported to llil appointed during the ban period and worked in your mandal is enclosed (as reported in t his office Lr.Na. A7 / 427 3 / 2OO9, dt. L7.LL.?OO9 ) r nd iequest you to verify with your office recorrl and report whether they were appointed by tlr ,: Tahsildar during ban period and worked in p ursuant of 19 orders. If so. the period of their actual working as VRA to enable this office to take further action." DISCUSS ION AND CONCLU SIo N: DISCUS SION

7. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are Village Revenue Assistants of different villages and had been appointed by the Mandal Revenue Officers/Tahsildars of the respective Mandals in the years between 2006 and 2010, the dates of the appointment of the petitioners and the details pertaining to the Village, Mandal Proceedings number, name of the petitioner and the competent authority appointing them is Villa g e Mandal Proceed angs as u nder: Name of Petitioner Competent Authority P.Venkatanna Laxmi G.Ven kataiah M.Chandra Shekar D.Kamalakanth Balappa T.Ramu Geetha Sglesh l(! Y.Yad a ia h P.Thovurya K.Hanu manthu B. Chand rasekhar T.Vijay Ku mar C. Bheemaiah B.S.Ramprasad D.Anjilappa MRO MRO Tahsildar Ta hsilda r Ta hsilda r Ta hsildar Tahsildar Ta hsilda r Tahsildar MRO MRO Ta hsilda r Ta hsrldar Tahsildar Tahsildar Tahsildar Tahsildar Biiiaram Kothapally Veltor Koritikal Perapally Kotakonda Snahasanpally curlapally Na raya na pet Amangal Ramnuthu la Peddanandiqama Kodanqal Tekalkode Hasnabad Kondareddypally Rudraram S No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11. l2 13. l4 15 16 r7 Maldaka I Maddur Uppanunthala anunthala U N a f a a napet Nara ana Narayana pet J.,larayanapet _ Nara ana et Amangal Amanqal Koda n ga I Kodangal Kodanqa I Kodangal Kondanqa I Kondanga I No A/2809/20Os a/ 77 47 / 2006 A1779/2010 A/71,9/2010 )._91 7 544 2008 c/7543/2008 c/7s43/2OOa _91 7 464/2004 cl7544/2008 Bl4440/2006 A/s526/2009 A/ss26/ 2009 A/5526/2009 Als526/2009 Al5526/2009 Al5526/2009 Date 31.01.20 06 01 .04. 2006 3 1.07. 20 10 31 .07.2010 31.01.2009 31.01.2009 31.01.20 09 31 .01.2009 31.01.2009 01.08.2006

31.05.2010 31.01.20 10 31. 12.20 09 3 1 .01.20 10 3 1 .01.2010 31.12.2009 20 B. It is the case of the petitioners that t re petitioners continued in discharge of their duties as Vi age Revenue Assistants from the date of their appoinir .ent., till the impugned proceedings dated 23.03.2018 had L.:en issued to the petitioners. It is the further specific case 01 ie petitioners that vide the lmpugned proceedings issued by the Collector and District Magistrate, Mahabubnagar, vtc € pro:eedings No.A7 1427.)/2009 dated 23.03.2018, the s,:r .rices of the petitioners had been terminated after 30.0.1 1012 It is further- corrtended by the petitioners that tr mirrating the services of the petitioners with retrospective el'r .-t i, e e.f.,

01.05.2012 vide proceedings dated 23.03..l1B of the the L respondent Collector a nd District Magistrate r.e unilaterally despite the fact that the petitic r'-.r had been working continuously since the date of appoirrl nent and till the date oF issuing proceedings dated 23.03.20 B by the 1't respondent herein is highly illegal, malafide, irr,ti ional and the same rs challenged by the petitioners herein orr the fcllowing grounds: (1) The order impugned is passed without isuing notice to the petitioner and is in violation of ttrr prinr:iples of natu ra I justice. 2t (2) That the petitioners were treated on par with other (t32) candidates whose services had been terminated and the said action of the 1't respondent is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India in as much as the State cannot treat unequal's as equals. (3) The petitioners having worked working continuously from the date of appointment till 23.03.2018 and being terminated on par with other (132) candidates whose appointments itself are bogus and fictitious and who never joined and worked is in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (4) The subject posts of the petitioners are vacant and they had not been notified as on date and therefore, the order impugned is highly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and needs to be set aside.

9. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 1't respondent and it is mainly contended in the counter affidavit that the appointment of the petitioners as Village Servants is itself irregular and in view of the fact that most of the vacancies of VRA's were notified for direct recruitment in the year 2012, the petitioners cannot seek any relief, and 22 SII further that in view of the fact that the petition :rs have been appointed during the ban period through Diroc. Recruitment as Village:lervants (VRAS) and since there wa:; ro m;:terial to show that l-he petitioners discharged their duties as Vt{As after

01.05,201,1, till date, the petitioners are no entitled for payment cf salary for the period for which t rey have not worked. The 1't respondent pleaded for dismi;r.al of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners had t:en aopointed irregularly as VRAS during the ban period c3 rtrar!, to the provisions of the Act 2 of 1994 and in view (,f the f'act that there was no record to show that the petitiore .s have been continued as VRAs in their respective vi lrges beyond

30.O4.2012 and upto 23.03.2018, the petitioner cannot seek any relief for inclusion of their names in the Fina Seniority list of VRAs issued in proceedings No.A7/1169 2072. dated

17.O2.2018 of the District Collector, Mahabubnag rr. LUSION: o 10. A bare perusal of the material on record c early indicates that the 1't i-espondent Collector and Distric Magistrate, Mahabubnagar, vide proceedings No.A7/4273 2009 dated L9.07.2017 addressed letter to the Tahsildars o the various Mandals in Mahabubnagar District and refer fing to the 23 representation of the Village Servants Associatlon for appointment ot honorarium of the working period sought for a report from all the Tahsildars, pertaining to furnishing of the actual period from which the petitioners discharged their duties as VRAs to enable the office of the District Collector to take further action in the matter. The said proceedings of the 1't respondent dated L9.0L.2017 clearly indicated that the salaries of the applicants who actually joined and who worked as Village Servants for the period during which they actually worked had to be but released. The said letter of the District Collector also included a detailed enclosure pertaining to the names of the Village Servants, the working places, the date of appointment with proceedings number, method oF appointment, the cause and the details or honorarium whether paid or not

11. A bare perusal of the report of the Collector and District Magistrate, Mahabubnagar addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad dated O4.O9.2O12 vide proceedings No.A7 /4273/2OO9 and also the report dated 25.O3.2013 of the District Collector, Mahabubnagar vide DEO Letter 24 No.A7/4273l2OOg dated 25.03.2O13 indicates that in the report dated O4.09.2Ot2, it is clearly almitted that the proposals were sent earlier basing on tlre reports of the Tahsildar, but not on verification of rec rrds such as pay bill registers, appointment files etc., ar'd the report dated 25.03.2013 indicates a G.O.Ms.No.212 and further an observation that the rr:ference to G.O.Ms.No.212 would not apply to the petilioners since they had not worked continuously prior t: five years from 25.11.1993. This Court opines a bar: perusal of the statement enclosed along with the proceedings No.A7/4273/2OO9 dated L9.OL.2OL7 <f the 1't respondent herein, it is admittedly borne < n record as per the date of appointment, the petationers' appointment fell during the years betweer 2OO6 and 2O1O and in view of the fact even if 2OL2 is; .aken as the basis since the counter affidavit says that t re posts fell vacant in the year 2OL2 i.e., since O:t.05.2012 as specifically contended at para L2 of i he counter affidavit filed by the 1"t respondent, the fact as borne on record is that the petitioners admittedly worked for more than five years as Village Revenur: Assistant's. 25 A bare perusal of the appointment orders of the petitioners indicates that it is clearly observed in the said orders that the petitioners had been appointed in an existing vacancy and the petitioners were found eligible for appointment having the requisite qualifications for the said post. L2. The material documents filed along with the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1 clearly indicates that the petitioners had been paid honorarium for the working period from 31.01.2OO9 to 3O.O4.2OLz and thereafter payment of honorarium had been stopped. But however, they are doing service voluntarily in assisting the VRO concerned without honorarium. These details find place in proceedings No.A/335/2O18 dated 20.11.2018 of Tahsildar, Narayanapet, addressed to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar in respect of five VRAs. This Court opanes that the 1't respondent though called for detailed reports from the Tahsildars concerned vide proceedings dated [9.OL.2OL7 vide No,A7 /4273/2009 did not examine the same in detail and however passed orders 26 SN,J impugned dated 23.O3.2018 vide No.A7 t4273/2OO9 stating that the proposals received from the Tahsildars concerned in Mahabubnagar District had been examined, further observed that the ser rices of the petitioners are deemed to be term i rated after 30.O4.2O12 without assigning any reasc'nsu without giving notice to the petitioners, without ar v discussion on the subject issue, clearly holding that th -' petitioners had been terminated after 3O.O4,2O72 v e e impugned proceedings dated 23.O3.2018 which is adrnittedly retrospective in operation. This Court opi'res that the 1"t respondent has no power to pass tl'a inrpugned order making it retrospectively operative.

13. The Apex Court in the Judgment dat(:(l O3.O3.2O14 reported in (2014) 12 Supreme Court (l;rses, 106 in 'STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND ANOTEHR 'v. RAM NIWAS BANSAL (DEAD) THROU(;I-I LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES" very clearly obser\/rld that the dismissal order cannot be made rs ::rospectively operative. 27 L4. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The impugned order dated 23.O3.2018 issued by the 1=t respondent is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Mascellaneous petitions, af any pending shall stands closed. MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Date: 03.10.2023 Note : L.R.copy to be marked. B / o.Yukr