Sri.G Venkateshwarulu v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No- 2 and 3 to consider the Probation and Regularizing the Services of the Petitioner to the original date of 07.09.2010 instead of 23.02.2012 for not affecting the seniority. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt V.VENKATA KUMAR counsel ror the Respondents: SRI D'3iT^?3*'$[$Ar.cHrLD wELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER c.\''r ,e HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA UIRIT PETITION No. 32a16 0F 2016 ORDER: The 2"d respondent - Directorate of Insurance issued proceedings dated 08.09.2016, impugned in this Writ Petition, whereby and whereunder the services of petitioner - Senior Assistant , District Insurance Oflice, I{hammarn (Zone- V) have been regularized in the category of Senior Accounl with effect from 07 .O7.2O1O and placed on probation for a pe riod of two years on dut5r within a continuous period of threc years with instructions to pass the requisite departmentai te sts during the period of probation. It is stated that petitioner completed two years or probation by 06-09 -2012 but he could not pass the requisite departmental tests during the said two year period, as such after obtaining explanation from the individual, probation was extended for a period with eliect lrorll 07 .Og.2Ol2 in terms of General Rule 17(b) of Telangana Slate and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. The said extended period of probation has a,lso been completed by O6.09.2013i however, petitioner acquired departmental tests by iO.O2.2014 i'e' beyond five months after the extended period of probation' Therefore, his case has been referred to the government which advised to take action as per Rule i6(h) for declaration of their l{ .f 2 probation considering the date of publication of result of last examination which would be two years anterior to the said date for commencement of probation- Therefore, tlie date of commenccment of probation and the date of declaration in respect of petitioner is fixed under Rule i6(h) as 23'O2'2012 FN and 23.O2.'2Oi 4 FN respectively. Consequently, seniority would be determinerl in lhe category of Senior Accountant in Tnne-V u,ith effect frorn 23.02.2072. The qrievance of petitioner is that the date 2. mentionerl in thc impugned proceedings is not the date of re gularizatiot-t of services and commencement of probation and the change of date would deprive his allowances and also senioritv in service. According to petitioner, his appointment \\:as conclitioned that he should clear departmental examinations uncicr the Serwice Rules within three years ie' with an appear.rnce of six departmental tests or two tests in a year' While t-rvo sessions of departmental tests are mandatory in a year or six clepartmental tests sessions in three years, the Government could conduct only four departmental tests within a period of 2O10 to 2013 due to Telangana agitations during that periocl. Apart from the above, he was also put to another inconvenience ie. he should mandatorily appear for Accountant -- ---a ,'' t I \ t test Sub-ordinate Part-II and Departmental tests for the Employment of Andhra Pradesh life Insurance Paper-I, though he applied for two tests, could not appear to one of the Test Paper I, due to the same date and timing, as sucl-t, pelitioner mandatorily needed to appear and pass in another session of Departmental Test. Petitioner was deprived of two sessions due to Telangana agitation and one session due to the time table scheme of Departmental test by the APPSC which deprived him to pass the department test in the given probation period under l 16(a) and 17(b) under the rules of AP Sub-ordinate service nrles,

1996. In case the departmental Exams are not cleared within three years, the service to the probation will fall under 16(h) aiong the Governors Rule 31 for the probation but not to ttre seniority. Petitioner cleared the tests uide Notification No. O9 of 2O 13 with the results declared on IO-O2-2OI4 which is nothing but the Fifth session of Departmental Tests to his appointment. As such, respondents over-looked the number of Sessions of departmental test to the period of Probation and not considering the agitations of Telangana, and the above time table scheme in considering the appointment of seniority i.e. from 07.O9.2OIO to 23.02.2012. Respondent 2 ald 3 applying i I I I I l (', I Ruie 16(h) for extension of probation only provided for the continuation of services of the individual but not for deprivation of senioriry ir the circumstances of involuntary losing of sessions of taking the Departmental test for no fault of - petitioner, lience, the action of Respondents 2 and 3 is highly erroneous, arbitrary and against o the principle of nature justice.

3. In the counter filed on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2, it is statcd t-hat petitioner was selected and allotted to A.P. f)overnmerll Life Insurance Department to the post of Senior Accountanl uide proceedings datcd 75-06-2007 and under Rule 16 (a) of A.P. State and Sub-ordinate serice Rules, 1996 read u,ith Rule (7) of Andhra Pradesh Governmcnt Life lnsurance (Sub) Servicc Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.289, Finance & Planning (FW. Admn-II) Department, dated. 18-10-1983. Accordingll.. appointment orders were issued to the above candidate uide Director of Insurance Proceeding No. (57O), dated 09-08-2010 in the united state ol Andhra Praclesh. It is submitted that the applicant was regularized and placed on probation on 07 -O9-2OIO uide this Director of Insurance proceeding dated ll-lD-2012 in the category of Senior Accountant under Rule 16 (b) of A.P. State and Sub-ordinate 7 Service Rules, 1996 read with Rule 7 of Andhra Pradesh Government Lil'e lnsurance (Sub) Service Rules for a period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years' with a condition to pass the departmental tests ie' Insurance and Book keeping and Accounts Test for Subordinate Ofhcers Part-l, during the period of probation, as the said tcsts are prescribed for declaration of probation, but he could not pass the requisite departmental tests during the said probation period, as such after obtaining explanation from the indiviclual' his probation has been extended for a period w'e-f' O7 -O9 2Ol2 in terms of General Rute 17 (b) of A' P State and subordinate ServiceRules,lgg6.Thesaidextendedperiodofprobationhas also been completed by 06-O9-2013' The applicant had acquired the departmental tests by 10-02 2014 (date of publica tion of result of last examination) i'e beyoncl five months aftcr the extended period of probation and the same was referred to the Government uide lrtter dated 17-O9-2014 for declaration of probation. Petitioner failed to attend Departmental Tests up to May 2013 for the reasons best known to him' It is also stated that after the correspondence made with Government from time to time, the Government declared probation of the applicant as per Ruie 16 (h) for declaration of probation' considering the date of pubiication of result of last examination which would be two f 6 -) a) years anterior to lhe said date for commencement of probation uide Government Memo dated 01-08-2O1,6 in the category of Senior Accountant. Il- is further stated that under Rule 16 (h), a probationcr, r,".1-ro does not pass the prescribed tests or acquire the prescribed special qualifications within the period of prob:rtion or rvithin the extended period of probation under rule 17 and u,hose probation is further extended by the Government bv an order under Rule 31 till the date of his passine such tests or acquirinq such qualifications, shall have lo be commenced lhe probatlon with effect from the date to be fixed by the Govcrnment, r.t,hich would be anterior to a date of his passing such tests! or ircquiring such special qualification and the same is considered by the Government without any dr:viation. As such, applicant's declaration of probation was done uide Proceerdings impr-rgned duly considering the date of tlualiflring 6f his last examination under Rule 16 (h) of A.P. stal,d and sub- ordinate serwice rules and under Rule 31 by the (lovernment rvhich is not violation or deviation of any rules.

4. Heard Sri V. Venkat Mayur, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri D. Hamsu Varma, learned Assistant Governmeni Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare. '1

5. Petitioner has taken out I'A.Nos; 1 of 2O19 and 1' of 2021 to place on record the copy of noti{ication No. 9 of 2O13 dated 79-12.2013 issued by APPSC and postponement of date of commencement of probation order issued the Finance -by Department in G.O.Rt.No. 1129, dated 18.o8-2O18 and proceedings No. 404, dated 27.O7.2020 issued by Respondents 2 and. 3. Both the Applications were ordered on 22.O8-2O23 and accordingly, the documents listed therein are taken on recorcl.

6. As we all know, departmental tests are bi-yearly mostly in May and November. For May sessions, generally, notification would be in February or March and for November Sessions, it would be in June or Ju1y. Admittedly, petitioner joined the service on 07 .O9.2OIO, so, he has to pass the tests within two years i.e. from 07.09.201O to 06.0-9.2012- Since he joined on 07.Og.2O1O, he lost November, 2O1O session' Subsequently, due to Telangana agitation, session of May 2O11 was clubbed with November session o{ 2Ol2 , as such, petitioner lost three sessions out of four sessions in appearing within the period of two years. During mandatory extended period under Rule 17(b), petitioner claims to have met with an accident, thereby he couid not make May session of 2O13 and appeared to November Session of 20 13 through Notification I ,1 8 r', dated 27 .a7 .2O i 3 which is very much within the period of probation to Rule 17(b) where petitioner cleared all the tests. In support ol his case, petitioner placed on recqrcl the Notification No 9 of 2O13 datecl 19.12.2013 which is to the. effect that APPSC has deci<led to hold the departmental tests, November 20 13 Scssion Examinations from 3O.01.2014 to 04.O2.2O14 which u'ere schcdr-tlecl to be held from 12.12.2013 to 01.12.2013 are postponecl duc to ongoing agitations in some parts of the State. Ia vierv rrl thc circumstances beyond his control, delay in passing rhe departmental tests cannot be attributed to iletitioncr.

7. The senioriry of a person shall be determined by the <1ate of iris first appointment to such serwice. The date of appoilltmcnt is different from the date of commencement of proiration. Boilr irnder Generai Rules and Special Rules, the colnn'rence j:nent of probation is from the date on which a person appointecl joins the duty. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.Venkatq Rq:nud.u u. State of A-P. (Civil Appeal No. 9861 of 2O16), dated

27.A9.2O7(t, u,herein it has been held that 'the conclusion of the Tribunal(conlirmed by the High Court) ttrat those persons who pass the Ar:count Test within the prescribed period of probation 9 (- constitute a different ciass than those who pass the Account I Test after securing the benefit of extended period of probation and such later class shall not gain advantage by u'ay of seniority over the class mentioned earlier is without any basis in the text \ of the Rules. If the Rule making authority desired to make such a distinction, it shouid have done so expressly. It is a different matter whether such a classification would stand to the test of Article 14. We clo not propose to examine the same in this case'. In vierv of the said judgment, it is to bc held that senioritv of petitioner shall not be affected.

8. Further, lrom G.O.Rt.No. 7129, dated 18.O8.2018, it could be seen that in respect of Sri N.S. Ravi Kumar, Senior Accountant, O/o the Assistant Director, District Insurance Of{ice, Medal< at Sangareddy, probation period was extended ior a period of 38 days i.e. from 17.04.2016 to 25.O5.2016 in relaxation of Rule 17(b) of General Rules, under Rule 31 of General Rule, 1996. g. From the above, this Court is of thc considered opinion that Writ Petition deselves to be a1lowed.

10. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allor,r'ed, tieating the date of declaration of regularization and commencement of probation of petitioner as O7.O9.2010. No costs. ,-4 f t0 1l . Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. o 9l That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' witness ftre'i'o-r.i,iir_e iH'e acfr-r'G cnrer lusrtcE SUJAY PAUL, on this "'; ;i,i;; i;;' i\^i" "tvlinhb'iv iji'apii t iwo rhousan d And rwentv Five SD/- C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REPISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Finance, State of Telangana' Hyderabad' 2. The Director, Directorate of lnsurance, Govemment of Telangana' Hyderabad.

3. The Assistant Director.' District lnsurance Office' Khammam District' 4. One CC to SRI V.VENKATA KUMAR, Advocate' [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE' High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies BSK GJP , --. z,' HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 (-' <, .9 s* (a \ iU !;.1 \ P $- ir, (l J1 1i1\'r ,/ ORDER WP.No.32816 of 2016 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I/z z//3,/< ,