Deueloptnent Corpn v. Jabar Singh

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare aggrieved by the impugned action of the respondents in not considenng petitioner's claim for accord notional seniority on par with the candidates recruited through DSC-2012 who selected along with her joined service on 28-12-2012 duly modifying her date of a ppointment'f rom 21-11- 20't3 to 28.12.2018 while considering similar request in case of A.Suhashini by the same respondents is illegal, arbitrary, discriminalory and violation of Articles 14 and '16 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently declare that the petitioner is also entitled to consider and accord notional fixation of seniority and pay on par with counter parts recruited in same DSC-2012 by m odif tn the date of appointmenl kom 21 .11.2013 to 28 12.2018 as was done in case of similarly placed peisons like A.Suhashini by the respondents by taking into consideration S. R. entry of A.suhashini and also entitled to extent the benefit of Proc.Rc.no.B1/3'1 58/2016 dt.29.08.2017 for fixation of Revi ;ed Pay Scales, 2015 with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. RAMGOPAL RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: SMT. B. ANNAPURNA, AS; f. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. r6667 oF 2019 ORDER: With a wrongly drafted praycr Lhe petitioner hled this writ Petttlon on 2O.O7 .2olg seeking a direction to the respondents to modify her date of appointment as School Assistant (Maths) from 2I'1 1 2013 to 28 12'2018 (it will be 28.12.2O12. with all consequcntial bencfits' The contention ol petitioncr is that she applied to 2. the post of School Assistant (lUaths) uicle DSC-2O I 2 Notification issucd by the Commissioner :rnd Dircctor of School Education and got selection. Appoin tment order dated 2 1 1 1 20 1 3 n'as given to her and she joined duty on 22 1)"2{J13 Petitioner's coie contention is that somc of thc candidates who were sclectedalongwithherrtt.rrgivcrrappoinlmenlc,rdersin November,2ol2itselfandtheyjoineddutyiln28.ll.2ol2' hence, her date of joining be trcated as 28 1l'2O12- She further contends that similarly-situated candidates i e' who were given appointment orders, approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O A' Nos' 4817 ol 2O15 and 4800of2Ol5,whereintheTribunaldirectedtogivethem notional date of joining/ seniority Shc further contends that \ \ "t' 2 since her date of joining is not treated as 28. 1 1 . () 12, she was dcprived of the benefits ot PRC 20 I 5. il. Respondents filed counter contendi t 1 rhzrt har.ing ircceptcd thc appointmcnt order dated 21.11.201 I :rrrci joining duty on 22..112Ol3 u,ithout any objection, it is l rt triLe on the part of pctitioner no\^. to seek notional seniority r, par rvith the l)ersons appointed in DSC-2012 with effect fro r 28.1\.2012, :Lfter lapse of :rbout six years. It is further conten, I t1 lh:rt as per Itue-33 of the AP State and Subordinate Servicc ii i t's. seni,.rrity counts fi'orn the date of joining the duty, ttt r t t ltctrtioner ('ilnnot be given seniority effective from 28.1 I {) 12. though notionalll,, whcn she joined duty on 22.11.2013. 4 . l{card learned counsel for petitiont:r :i r i M. Rama ()opal Rao and Smt. B. Annapurna, leanr .rl Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I. ir. Reiterating the averments o[ writ afIi, :rvit, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the 1L lgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Prad€: r (r:omposite) irr Writ Petition No. 21 193 of 2017 dated 29.Ot-r . L) I 7 and rhe judgment oI this Court in Writ Petitions No. 49 I I ot 2017 and batch date<l 25.1I.2022, rendered following tht judgment of Division Bench referred to above. . // -) The judgment in Writ Petition No 21193 of 2017 is

6. distinguishable on facts. In that case, except the candidates who were selected in Nizamabad District' the candidates selectedinotherDrstrictsofLlrcStatr\\er(giv(nappointment orders basing on the pass certificates in crash course for six months conducted in Government Institutions' Thcrefore' candidates of Nizamabad District filecl OA No 8113 of 2010 which was disposed of on 19- t 1 20 l0 directing respondents therein to issue appointrrient orders Accordingly, petitioners were given appointment orders dated 06 08 20 14 u'ith a condition that they are not etigibie for notional hxation of seniorigr on par with other DSC 2018 selected candidates' Challenging the same, they {iled OA No 34 of 2o15 This OA was allowed by order d,ated 21.O4'2O16 Government' aggrieved thereby, filed Writ Petition No 21193 of 2017 ' A learned Division Bench by order dated 29.06'2017 dismissed lhe Writ Petition conhrming the order of the Tribunal in oA No- 34 of 2015 dated 21.O4.2016. In the other judgment relied on by petitioner in Writ 7 . Petition No. 4918 of 2Ol7 and batch, though petitioners therein were selected in DSC 2OO2, no provisional seniority list was drau'n and circulated till 2Ol2 and it is only in 2012' it rvas drawn and circulated. Petitioners raised objections to the 4 provisional seniority list, but they were not rep1i,: i. Further, no countcr aflidavit was f-rled in that Writ Peli- rn. In those circumstitnces, re lying on the Division Bench's ; rrlgment, rhis Court :rilorn'ed the Writ Petitions.

8. Tl'rc lacts of the two judgments ref -' red to above relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner zr: e different. In the Writ Petition before Division Bench, equa I persons are treatcd unr:quallr' candidates with the same qua[. ]:at ions '.r'ere given apl)ointment orders in all districts excepr ir Nizamabad. On thc ground of parity of treatment, petition(': s contention was acr:epl ed. In t he other batch of Writ Petitio I ; provisional senioritv list of 2OO2 DSC selected candidates r rs clrarvn up and circulate d tn 2Ol2 and the objections to .t were not ansvvcrc'd. Rut, in the case on hand, facts are diffe t:et.

9. Per contra, Iearned Government Ple i 1,lr relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court i;r Writ Petition No. 36516 of 2024 dated 03.O2.2O25. In this Wr I t)etition, rhe impugrred order dated 09.O4.2019 was challengerl efter a delay of 5 % 1ears. Referring to various judgments of thr: i:'on'ble Apex Court irr Chennai Metropolltan Water Supplg cLt.d. Seuterage Board u- T.T. Murali Ba.bul, I|ttaranc tal Forest '1zot+1 + scc 108 u l i i I I J -5 Deueloptnent Corpn. V. Jabar Singh2; U'P' Jal Nigam o' Jasuornt Singh3 and State of lt.P' a' Aruind' Kumar Sriuastavaa, the Division Bench dismissed the Writ Pctition on the ground of inordinate delay o1. more than 5 Izr )'cars' In the case on hand, though selection is of 2012'

10. petitioner was given appointment order on 21'll'2013 and she joined service on 22.11.2013. As per Rule 33 ol the Statc and Subordinate Service Rules, senioriqr counts [rom thc date of joining the dury only. Petitioner kept silent lor about six years and filcd the Writ Petition in 2O 19 secking notional seniority' There is an abnormal unexplained delay of about six 1'ears' which is sufhce to dismiss the Writ Petition lf petitioner's prayer were to be accepted, several candidates, who joined service betwe en 28.12.2012 and 22'11'2O 13 u'itl be affected' Nevertheless, none of them are arrayed as respondents in this Writ Petition. Thus, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary Parties' Yet another reason is, the State Govcrnment issued 1 1. Circular Memo No. 57759lSer'Al2OO4-1, dated 20'O5 2004' categorically stating that seniority cannot be revien'ed after lapse of three years. In the case on hand, it is about six years' ' (2oo?) 2 scc I 12 t (zooo) tt scc +ea ' (2o t-5) I scc i47 6 l I I The Hon'ble Apcx Court in a plethora of cases -leld that the settled senioritl cannot bc unsettled after lapse o' rLuch timc.

12. For the above rcasons, this Court firrr s, no merir in thc Wnt Pctition 'lhe Writ Pctition is accordinglr l.smisscd. No costs. I 3. Const'quentlv, miscellaneous Applir z L ons, if zrny shall stand c lo scd. \ SN/. .],SREENIVAS REDDY -Ist tsteur REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER ,TRUE COPY// \ 1 ?,13 33 JiiSi Y #gL"-",LAE Sfl l S';"":':{?Jffi : i l a te or re t a n g a n a IOUTI iwo CD CoPies 3 To, BN TKS _^$/ HIGH COURT DATED:1411012025 .46'*;'';v 13 2 020 .C) * * PA 'l-(: l eO ORDER WP.No.16667 of 2019 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS N -\Jr6