Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Mynine Murali Krishna, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 11 March, 2025
APHC010183362022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
3459
TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION (AT) No.126 OF 2022
Between:
Challa Kalarani --- Petitioner
and
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary,
Agriculture & Co-operation
(AGRL.IV) Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Guntur District and 3 others. --- Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M. Vijay Kumar, Sr. Counsel,
Rep. Sri C.L.N. Gandhi
Counsel for the respondents : Learned Government Pleader
for Services-II
The Court made the following ORDER:
The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the
action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner for
pay fixation with effect from 07.02.2009 and for considering her seniority
on par with other Agricultural Extension Officer‟s (AEO) recruited in 2009
is discriminatory, arbitrary, illegal and against the fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the
2
JS, J
WP (AT) No.126/2022impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 13.12.2018, and
further direct the respondents to consider the petitioner‟s case on par with
other direct recruit AEOs, consider her case for promotion as Agricultural
Officer on par with other direct recruits of 2009 and to fix the pay of the
petitioner from the date of Notification and sanction increments as per the
order of this Court in Writ Petition No.32416 of 2012, dated 01.05.2018.
Brief facts of the case:
2. The petitioner was born on 15.07.1975. She was just short of
attaining the age of 34 years as on 01.07.2009. As she passed requisite
B.Sc., degree in Agricultural Science, she applied for the post of
Agricultural Extension Officer Grade-II through Direct Recruitment.
3. The petitioner filed O.A.No.3190 of 2009 before the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as
„the Tribunal‟) to declare the action of the respondent authorities in
prescribing the upper age limit of 33 years in the notification dated
07.02.2009 in violation of G.O.Ms.No.115, dated 29.02.2008, as illegal
and to consequently direct the authorities to consider her application by
taking the maximum age limit as 34 years.
4. By virtue of interim order, dated 19.02.2009, passed by the
Tribunal in O.A.No.3190 of 2009, the petitioner was allowed to participate
3
JS, J
WP (AT) No.126/2022in the selection process for the post of Agricultural Extension Officer
Grade-II. Thereafter, by order, dated 05.06.2009, passed in M.A.No.1700
of 2009, the Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to declare the
result of the petitioner. The petitioner secured 73.26% and stood within
the roster point No.261 reserved for O.C. (W).
5. O.A.No.3190 of 2009 was clubbed with other connected O.As. and
all the O.As were dismissed on 24.04.2012. Questioning the dismissal
order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.32416 of 2012. The Writ Petition
was allowed on 01.05.2018 with the following observation:
“On the above analysis, this Court finds in favour of the petitioner.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the common
order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the Tribunal in so far as it
pertained to the petitioner, the second applicant in O.A. No.3190 of
2009. The respondents are directed to give effect to the selection
of the petitioner pursuant to the Notification, dated 07.02.2009, and
appoint her to the Post of Agricultural Extension Officer Grade-II
forthwith.”
6. On 31.05.2018, the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.Estt.III/2212/2008
appointed the petitioner as AEO Grade-II. Furthermore, the 3rd
respondent, through proceedings No.Estt.III/2212/2008, dated
05.09.2018, regulated the petitioner’s pay under RPS-2015, with effect
from her date of joining. On 08.10.2018, the petitioner submitted a
representation to the 3rd respondent to fix her pay from the date of the
4
JS, J
WP (AT) No.126/2022
Notification and sanction notional increments from 07.02.2009 in terms of
the orders passed in the Writ Petition and further to include her name in
the panel year of 2009 and to promote her as Agricultural Officer. The 2nd
respondent, through Memo No.A5(1)700/2017, dated 13.12.2018,
rejected the petitioner’s request with the following observation:
“No retrospective promotion can be granted nor can the
seniority be assigned on retrospective basis from a date
when the employee was not borne in a particular cadre.”
This writ petition is filed questioning the aforesaid proceedings
dated 13.12.2018.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents
have misinterpreted the order passed in Writ Petition No.32416 of 2012,
dated 01.05.2018. The Writ Petition was allowed directing the
respondents to appoint the petitioner forthwith; the 2nd respondent cannot
say that the direction was limited to appoint her as Agricultural Extension
Officer Grade-II but must also consider her seniority by following Rule 33
of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules and finally prayed to allow
the Writ Petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions,
relied on a decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Balwant Singh Narwal
5
JS, J
WP (AT) No.126/2022
and others v. State of Haryana and others1. Para Nos.9 and 10 of the
judgment are extracted hereunder:
“9. There is no dispute about these general principles. But
the question here is in regard to seniority of Respondents 4 to 16
selected on 01.10.1993 against certain vacancies of 1992-1993
who were not appointed due to litigation, and those who were
selected against subsequent vacancies. All others from the same
merit list declared on 01.10.1993 were appointed on 02.06.1994.
Considering a similar situation, this Court, in Surendra Narain
Singh v. State of Bihar {(1998) 5 SCC 246} held that candidates
who were selected against earlier vacancies but who could not
be appointed along with others of the same batch due to certain
technical difficulties, when appointed subsequently, will have to
be placed above those who were appointed against subsequent
vacancies.
10. This Court while allowing the appeals by Respondents 4
to 16 by order dated 06.12.1999 made it clear that all the 30
persons recommended by the Commission as per merit list dated
01.10.1993, including Respondents 4 to 16 are entitled to be
appointed. The State Government submitted that but for the
order dated 04.04.1994 of the High Court, Respondents 4 to 16
would have been appointed on 02.06.1994 itself. The order dated
04.04.1994 was ultimately set aside by this Court and
Respondents 4 to 16 who were consequently appointed should
not be denied the benefit of seniority. Therefore, the State
Government was justified in giving them only notional seniority
and placing them immediately below the other 16 candidates
selected in the common merit list (published on 01.10.1993) and
1
(2008) 7 SCC 728
6
JS, J
WP (AT) No.126/2022
appointed on 02.06.1994. Respondents 4 to 16 have been given
retrospective seniority not from the date of their selection as
wrongly assumed by the appellants, but from 02.06.1994 when
other selected candidates in their merit list were appointed.”
9. The Learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the
respondents, submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Agricultural
Extension Officer Grade-II on 31.05.2018. Her pay was fixed based on
her date of joining in the said post, and the benefits, as admissible to her,
were extended only from that date and not from the earlier date since the
petitioner was not in service at all from 07.02.2009. Furthermore, the
petitioner worked as a Block Technology Manager (BTM) on a contract
basis in ATMA, Nellore, from 2011 onwards, which cannot be considered
a regular Agricultural Extension Officer post. Therefore, the rejection order
issued by the 2nd respondent is appropriate, and the Writ Petition is
prayed to be dismissed.
10. This Court has considered the submissions of Sri M. Vijaya Kumar,
learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri C.L.N. Gandhi, learned counsel
for the petitioner on record, and the learned Government Pleader for
Services-II, appearing for the respondents and perused the material
available on record.
7
JS, J
WP (AT) No.126/2022
11. The argument put forth by the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner has considerable force when the selection of the
petitioner was found to be in order and was appointed on the basis of the
selection that took place vide Notification dated 07.02.2009, it is not open
for the respondents to deny the benefits to the petitioner, which she is
otherwise entitled to on par with her colleagues who were selected along
with the petitioner as per the Notification dated 07.02.2009.
12. The only contention of the petitioner was that the maximum age
limit should be taken to 34 years. However, the OA filed by the petitioner
was clubbed with other O.As and the said issue was not pertinent to the
petitioner‟s cases at all. Hence, such delay cannot be held against the
petitioner when determining the benefits she is legally entitled to. The
petitioner was unjustly denied increments and seniority, making her junior
to all the selected candidates from the same notification. She is also
denied her legally entitled pay and increments.
13. Under similar circumstances, this Court in Writ Petition No.32416
of 2012 clearly stated that the petitioner should be appointed as
Agricultural Extension Officer Grade-II immediately. The respondent
authorities cannot deny the seniority, pay, and increments she deserves
with her batch mates, which discriminates against her. Thus, based on the
8
JS, J
WP (AT) No.126/2022
case facts, it is appropriate to set aside the 2nd respondent’s proceedings
dated 13.12.2018.
14. In State of Haryana and others v. Dinesh Kumar2, the Civil
Appeal No.1840 of 2007, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No.1840 of 2007, and the Civil Appeal No.85 of 2008, arising out of
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14939 of 2007, were decided differently
by two co-ordinate benches of the same High Court. Para No.31 of the
said judgment is relevant to the instant case and is extracted hereunder:
“31. In the result, the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C)
No.1840 of 2007 is dismissed, while the Civil Appeal arising out of
SLP(C) No.14939 of 2007 is allowed. The Judgment of the High
Court dated 22nd September, 2005 impugned in the said appeal, is
set aside and the concerned respondents are directed to take
steps to issue appointment letters to the appellants in the said
appeals subject to fulfillment of other conditions by them. It is also
made clear that the appellants will be deemed to have been
appointed as Constable-Drivers with effect from the date, persons
lower in merit to them were appointed. However, while they will be
entitled to the notional benefits of such continuous appointment,
they will be entitled to salary only from the date of this judgment on
the basis of such notional benefits.”
(Emphasis supplied)
2
2008 (3) SCC 222
9
JS, J
WP (AT) No.126/2022
15. The Hon‟ble Apex Court had an occasion to deal with similar
situation in Sanjay Dhar v. Jammu and Kashmir Public Service
Commission and another3, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed
that the appellant therein was selected for the post of Munsif in the list
prepared by the J&K Public Service Commission in the year 1993 and is
protected by the interim order of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir,
who secured 3rd Rank in the select list and as such the appellant is fully
entitled to the relief. His appointment is being calculated with effect from
the same date with which the candidates finding their place in the order of
appointment, issued pursuant to the select list prepared by the J&K Public
Service Commission for 1992-1993 were appointed and deserves to be
assigned notionally a place of seniority consistently with the order of merit
assigned by the J&K Public Service Commission. The relevant portion of
the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
“We have already noticed the learned Single Judge having
directed the appellant to be appointed on the post of Munsif in the
event of his name finding place in the select list subject to the
outcome of the writ petition which order was modified by the
Division Bench in LPA staying the order of the learned Single but
at the same time directing one vacancy to be kept reserved. The
High Court and the Government of J&K (Law Department) were
not justified in by-passing the judicial order of the High Court and
making appointments exhausting all available vacancies. The right3
(2000) 8 SCC 182
10
JS, J
WP (AT) No.126/2022of the appellant, if otherwise sustainable, cannot be allowed to be
lost merely because of an appointment having been made wittingly
or unwittingly in defiance of the judicial order of the High Court.
For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed. The judgment
under appeal is set aside. It is directed that the appellant shall be
deemed to have been appointed along with other appointees
under the appointment order dated 06.03.1995 ad assigned a
place of seniority consistently with his placement in the order of
merit in the select list prepared by J&K PSC and later forwarded to
the Law Department. During the course of hearing the learned
senior counsel for the appellant made a statement at the Bar that
the appellant was interested only in having his seniority reckoned
notionally in terms of this order and was not claiming any monetary
benefit by way of emoluments for the period for which he would
have served in case he would have been appointed by order dated
06.03.1995. We record that statement and direct that the appellant
shall be entitled only to the benefit of notional seniority (and not
monetary benefits) being given to him by implementing this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The contesting respondents
shall pay the appellant costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-.”
,
,
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances and the ratio
laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, as above, the Writ Petition is allowed
setting-aside the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated
13.12.2018, and consequently the 2nd respondent is directed to fix the pay
of the petitioner on par with other selected candidates, who were
appointed as per the Notification, dated 07.02.2009, except the benefit of
11
JS, J
WP (AT) No.126/2022
back wages for the period the petitioner was not in service (has not
worked). Further, the respondents are directed to grant all the benefits as
per the entitlement of the petitioner within a period of three (3) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
Date: 11.03.2025
DSH
