J.Sudarshanamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.11355 OF 2012

O R D E R The petitioner seeks regularization of her services as a Matron Grade-II in the Social Welfare Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh. She earlier filed O.A.No.1835 of 2007 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal assailing the action of the authorities in not regularizing her services as a Matron Grade-II though she was continuously working as such for the last twenty years. She sought a consequential direction to the authorities to appoint her to the said post on a regular basis. The said O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 05.02.2009 directing the authorities to consider her representation for regularization in the post of Matron Grade-II, if feasible, otherwise she was to be permitted to join as an Instructress in the NGPC, Proddatur, as ordered under the proceedings dated

03.10.2002 of the Deputy Director (SW), Cuddapah. Pursuant to this order, the District Collector, YSR District, by proceedings dated 07.03.2012, rejected the petitioner’s request for regularization of her services as a Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-II (erstwhile Matron Grade-II). This proceeding has not been subjected to challenge by the petitioner. Instead, she once again reiterates her prayer for regularization of her services and seeks appointment as a Matron Grade-II. The rejection of the petitioner’s request regularization pursuant to the order passed in O.A.No.1835 of 2007 embodied in the proceedings dated 07.03.2012 of the District Collector, YSR District, presents a fresh cause of action to the petitioner. This cause of action would necessarily have to be addressed in the first instance before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and not before this Court by way of a writ petition. This writ petition, on the face of it, is not maintainable in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in L.CHANDRA KUMAR V/s. UNION OF INDIA [1] . Sri D.V.Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would however contend that despite the petitioner approaching the Tribunal time and again no relief has materialized so far. This fact, even if true, would not entitle the petitioner to overlook the Tribunal, which is the forum of the first instance, and directly approach this Court. The writ petition is therefore dismissed as not maintainable. This order shall however not preclude the petitioner from approaching the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law. Interim order dated 19.04.2012 stands vacated. WPMP No.14331 of 2012 and WVMP No.2808 of 2012 do not survive for consideration as the writ petition itself is being dismissed on grounds of maintainability and they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. PGS [1] AIR 1997 SC 1125