Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
K Victor Paul vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION No.18986 of 2024
Between:
K.VICTOR PAUL, S/O LATE LUKARAJU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCC: SENIOR ASSISTANT, R/O CHATLAVADA VILLAGE,
MAREDUMILLIMANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT,
ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AND 13 OTHERS
...PETITIONERS
AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAL BUILDINGS,
VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT AND THREE OTHERS.
...RESPONDENTS.
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 21.01.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Page 2 of 16
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
+ WRIT PETITION No.18986 of 2024
% 21.01.2025
WRIT PETITION No.18986 of 2024
Between:
K.VICTOR PAUL, S/O LATE LUKARAJU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCC: SENIOR ASSISTANT, R/O CHATLAVADA VILLAGE,
MAREDUMILLIMANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT,
ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AND 13 OTHERS
...PETITIONERS
AND
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAL BUILDINGS,
VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT AND THREE OTHERS.
...RESPONDENTS.
! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri M.K.Raj Kumar
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri G.Raju, GP for Services-I
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) (2003) 11 SCC 519
2) (2004) 5 SCC 568 : AIR 2004 SC 1794
3) (2010) 9 SCC 496
This Court made the following:
Page 3 of 16
APHC010374772024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 18986/2024
Between:
K Victor Paul and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. M K RAJ KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioners, 14 in number filed the above writ petition, impugning
the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide Ref.Admin.2/e-
37541/2024, dated 19.08.2024 (Ex.P1), whereby reverting them as
Village Revenue Officers (Grade-I), as illegal, arbitrary and violative of
G.O.Ms.No.225 General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated
18.05.1999.
Page 4 of 16
2. The 1st petitioner deposed to the affidavit on behalf of the other
petitioners. Brief facts, are that the petitioners were appointed Village
Revenue Officers on 08.02.2007 in the respondents’ offices 2 to 4. The
petitioners and others were promoted to the cadre of Senior Assistants
vide Ref:A6/21/2022 dated 21.02.2022 subject to certain conditions, i.e.,
passing departmental tests. After promotion, the petitioners passed some
tests conducted by the 2nd respondent. The petitioners could not pass the
“Proficiency in automation with the usage of Computer and Associated
Software” test. Some of the petitioners could not pass the survey test.
All the petitioners crossed 45 years and hence, are exempted from
passing tests prescribed in the special Rules, as per G.O.Ms.No.225,
dated 18.05.1999. The petitioners made a representation dated
12.07.2024 to the show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent dated
09.07.2024 explaining the reasons and requesting time by one year to
complete the exams. However, the 2nd respondent without considering
the same, issued the proceedings impugned. Hence, the writ petition.
3. An additional affidavit was filed by way of I.A.No.2 of 2024. In
Paragraph 10 of the additional affidavit, in the tabular form, it was
mentioned about tests passed and the tests yet to be passed by them.
4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 2nd respondent. It was
contended, interalia, that there was no promotion channel available to
Village Revenue Officers (VROs) either to Junior Assistant Cadre or to
Senior Assistant Cadre. The VRO post is not a feeder category post to
any of the posts in the Revenue Department. The Government has
taken a policy decision vide G.O.Ms.No.154 Revenue (Services-III)
Department dated 05.07.2021 and created a promotion channel from the
category of VROs (Grade-I) as Senior Assistants with certain conditions.
Page 5 of 16
Out of 47 VROs (Grade-I) promoted to the cadre of Senior Assistant on a
conditional basis, 17 VROs (Grade-I) have not passed all the required
departmental tests even after the lapse of two years. The APPSC
conducts the “Proficiency in automation with usage of Computer and
Associated Software” test regularly. The Survey Training test was also
conducted by the Survey Training Academy. The writ petitioners along
with others were considered for promotion, since they have degree
qualifications, ignoring the seniors, who do not have degree
qualifications. G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 18.05.1999 does not apply to the
petitioners and eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Heard Sri K.Maheswara Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri
M.K.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri G.Raju, learned
Government Pleader for Services for respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order
impugned does not contain reasons. Imposing the conditions qua
passing of departmental while promoting the petitioners, in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 05.07.2021, is unreasonable and contrary to
G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 18.05.1999. The authorities, at the most, can
postpone the increment without reverting the petitioners. A channel was
created for the first time vide G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 05.07.2021 for
promoting the Village Revenue Officers (Grade-I) to the cadre of Senior
Assistant.
7. Per contra, Sri G.Raju, learned Government Pleader for Services
for respondents would submit that the petitioners were promoted to the
post of Senior Assistant in terms of G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 05.07.2021
with certain conditions. Having availed the benefit, the petitioners cannot
plead that the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 05.07.2021 are
Page 6 of 16
unreasonable. He also would submit that the petitioners cannot
approbate and reprobate. The tests prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.154 dated
05.07.2021 are not new tests prescribed for the first time and they were
already prescribed in A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, 1998 and eventually
prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Now, the point for consideration is:
Whether the proceedings impugned vide Ref.Admin.2/e-
37541/2024, dated 19.08.2024 (Ex.P1) is legally
sustainable?
9. As narrated supra, there is no dispute regarding the petitioners’
appointment as Village Revenue Officers and thereafter promotion to the
cadre of Senior Assistant from Village Revenue Officers (Grade-I) vide
Ref:A6/21/2022 dated 21.02.2022. The promotions of the petitioners and
others were affected, in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.154 Revenue
(Services-III) Department dated 05.07.2021.
10. The post of Village Revenue Officer, initially, is not a feeder
category to the post of Senior Assistant before the issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 05.07.2021. However, by G.O.Ms.No.186,
Revenue (VA) Department, dated 04.03.2010, orders were issued to
include the Village Revenue Officers drawing Junior Assistant scale of
pay as one of the feeder categories for the post of Senior Assistant in
Revenue Department by suitably amending the Andhra Pradesh
Ministerial Service Rules, 1998, nevertheless, such an amendment would
cease to exist after all the village revenue officers drawing junior
assistant pay scale are exhausted. Another G.O.Ms.No.25, General
Administration (Ser.B) Department dated 19.01.2011 was issued to the
Page 7 of 16same effect. Thus, the amendments made, before G.O.Ms.No. 154 dated
5-7-2021, for a limited purpose to promote Village Revenue Officers,
drawing junior assistant pay scale, are exhausted.
11. Be that as it may, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration
has submitted proposals vide Ref No.Ser.IV(1)/875/2009 dated
11.09.2018 stating that based upon the amendments issued to the
Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules, 1998 promotions have been
effected to all the VROs who are drawing Junior Assistant scale of pay to
the cadre of Senior Assistant; that there are few VROs who worked as
Panchayat Secretaries and drawing Junior Assistant scale without giving
promotion to the Senior Assistant cadre as per G.O.Ms.No.514, Revenue
(VA) Department dated 13.08.2012; that this channel would be ceased
once VROs are promoted to the Senior Assistant cadre in the State; that
there is no promotion channel available to the VROs either to Junior
Assistant cadre or to Senior Assistant cadre. However, the VRO post is
not a feeder category post to the Junior Assistant/Senior Assistant posts
in the Revenue Department and thus, requested to take a policy
decision.
12. Thereafter, the Government issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.514,
Revenue (VA) Department dated 13.08.2012 fixing the ratio of 60:40
between the Junior Assistants/Typists working in the Revenue
Department at the District level and Village Revenue Officers drawing the
Junior Assistants scale of pay, for promotion to the post of Senior
Assistant in Revenue Department at the District level in the cycle of
rotation. Thus, for the first time, for the post of Senior Assistant, the
Village Revenue Officer, Gr-I was made as one of the feeder categories.
Of course, certain conditions were also imposed.
Page 8 of 16
13. Before the above G.O., the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.132
Revenue (Ser.III) Department dated 08.05.2020 providing a promotion
channel for VROs (Grade-I) to the post of Senior Assistant by fixing the
ratio as 60:40 between the Junior Assistants and VRO (Grade-I)
respectively, with a condition that VRO (Grade-I) should work in the office
of Tahsildar for a minimum period of two years as Junior Assistant and
must pass certain qualification i.e. one should possess degree
qualification on par with Junior Assistant; one must complete five years
of service; the VRO (Grade-I) should have passed all the Departmental
tests prescribed for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant on par with
Junior Assistant as per the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, 1998; He/She
must have passed the “Proficiency in automation with the usage of
Computer and Associated Software” test conducted by the APPSC.
14. Thereafter, the Government after careful examination of the entire
issue in supersession of G.O.Ms.No.132 dated 08.05.2020 issued
G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 05.07.2021, with the following terms and
conditions:
I. Qualification:- The VRO (Grade-I) should possess a Degree qualification
on par with Junior Assistant as amended in G.O.Ms.No.135, General
Administration (Ser.B) Department dated 12.05.2014 for promotion to the
post of Senior Assistant.
II. Minimum service: He must have put in not less than five (5) years of
regular service in the present post i.e., VRO Gr-I, for promotion to the post
of Senior Assistant.
III. Ratio & Rotation: A ratio of 60:40 between the Junior Assistants /
Typists working in the Revenue Department at the District level and Village
Revenue Offers (Grade-I), with the following cycle of rotation:
Page 9 of 16
2nd vacancy; 5th vacancy; 7th vacancy and 10th vacancy is provided to
the Village Revenue Offer (Gr-1).
IV. Training & Regularization of Service.
(a) The VRO (Gr-I) on promotion as Senior Assistant should
work first (2) years in O/o the Tahsildar/RDO/Collectorate as Senior
Assistant to get acquaintance with drafting and noting. During this period
they shall not be deputed to field work as Revenue Inspector.
(b) The VRO (Gr-I) on promotion as Senior Assistant shall Pass
all the Departmental tests prescribed for promotion to the post of Senior
Assistant on par with Junior Assistant viz;
(i) Revenue Tests - 1,2,3
(ii) Survey Training for (42) days,
(iii) Crop Sampling and
(iv) Accounts Test for Subordinate Offers Part I
(c) The VRO (Gr-I) on promotion as Senior Assistant shall pass the
“Proficiency in Automation with usage of Computer and Associated
Software’ Departmental Test conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Public
Service Commission.”
The services will be regularized and seniority will be fixed in the category of
Senior Assistant only on fulfilling above (3) conditions. If any of the above
tests/training are not passed/completed within two (2) years they shall be
reverted to the post of VRO without assigning any prior notice.”
15. Thus, to get promoted to the post of Senior Assistant, the VRO
(Grade-I) should possess a degree and must have completed five years
of service. The VRO (Grade-I), after promotion, shall pass departmental
tests prescribed for promotion to the cadre of Senior Assistants on par
with Junior Assistants as per A.P. Ministerial Service Rules,1998.
16. The petitioners and others, totalling 47 in number were promoted
to the cadre of Senior Assistant on condition to fulfilling Clause No.8 (IV)
(a, b & c) of the G.O.Ms.NO.154 dated 05.07.2021. It was set out in the
Page 10 of 16
said G.O. that if any of the tests are not passed/completed within two
years, the promotees shall be reverted to the post of VRO without issuing
any prior notice. Out of 47 Seniors Assistants from VROs, 17 VROs
have not passed the required departmental tests and thus, a show cause
notice was issued and after considering the explanation submitted by
them, the proceedings impugned were issued.
17. It is pertinent to mention here that the Government issued
G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 18.05.1999 exempting, the Government
employees, who crossed 45 years of age from passing departmental
tests prescribed in the Special Rules/Adhoc Rules for promotion to the
next higher category if they could not get one promotion even after their
initial appointment. When the Chief Commissioner of Land
Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad issued a clarification stating
that passing of Revenue Survey Training, which is a technical
qualification shall not be exempted as per G.O.Ms.No.225 dated
18.05.1999 for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant from the feeder
category, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.391 Revenue (Ser.III)
Department dated 19.10.2015 exempting the employees who have
crossed 45 years of age from passing/completion of Survey Training
(Technical qualification) for getting first promotion to the post of Senior
Assistant from the category of Junior Assistant/Typist etc. It was further
clarified that those employees shall remain as Senior Assistant as
Ministerial staff till the end of their service in relaxation of Rules and they
shall not be eligible for training for the post of Revenue Inspector.
18. The G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 18.05.1999 was issued by the State
Government as per the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India
making an ad-hoc Rule, wherein exemption granted to the employees
Page 11 of 16
who have crossed 45 years from passing departmental tests starts with a
non-obstante clause. The proviso to the ad-hoc Rule, which is relevant is
extracted below:
Provided further that the exemption is applicable in case of Departmental
Tests or Special Tests only, where they are prescribed as a pre-requisite
for promotion and this exemption shall not be applicable where like
technical or academic qualifications are prescribed for promotion to the
next higher category of posts.
19. In respect of technical qualification i.e. completion of Survey
Training, it was clarified in G.O.Ms.No.391 dated 19.10.2015 that
completion of Survey Training for getting promotion, the employees who
have crossed 45 years of age are exempted. Thus, even before
G.O.Ms.No. 154 dated 05-07-2021 came into effect the rule regarding
the passing of tests qua employees above 45 years was clarified and it
was made clear that the employees above 45 years are exempted.
Having exempted the employees who crossed 45 years from the
departmental tests, whether reverting the petitioners is permissible?
20. The contention of the learned Government Pleader for Services
that the petitioners were promoted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.154 dated
05.07.2021 is not in dispute. However, the said G.O.Ms.No.154 dated
05.07.2021 was issued, as per Article 162 of the Constitution of India,
whereas G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 18.05.1999 was issued in exercise of
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The condition in
G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 05.07.2021, the VRO (Grade-I) on promotion, shall
pass all the departmental tests prescribed i.e. Revenue Tests – 1, 2, 3;
Survey Training for (42) days, Crop Sampling, Accounts Test for
Subordinate Offers Part I and “Proficiency in Automation with usage of
Computer and Associated Software’ Departmental Test conducted by
Page 12 of 16
APPSC, may not apply to the case at hand, since all the petitioners
crossed 45 years of age at the time of promotion to the cadre of Senior
Assistant. Whether imposing such a condition in G.O.Ms.No.154 dated
05.07.2021 is against the letter and spirit of G.O.Ms.No.225 dated
18.05.1999 will be examined in an appropriate case.
21. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that the
petitioners cannot approbate and reprobate may not apply to the facts
and circumstances of the case, all the petitioners crossed 45 years by
the date of their promotion. It is a settled principle of law that a
Government order issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India
will not prevail over a Rule made under proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. When the other feeder categories of employees to
the Senior Assistant are exempted from passing departmental tests,
crossed 45 years, the petitioners who crossed 45 years are also
exempted from passing the departmental tests.
22. The 2nd respondent despite the reply submitted by the petitioners
to the show cause notice, failed to consider the effect of G.O.Ms.No.225
dated 18.05.1999 and clarification issued by G.O.Ms.No.391 dated
19.10.2015 to the employees who have crossed 45 years of age qua
passing of departmental tests.
23. Time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that reason is
the heartbeat of every conclusion. The reason introduces clarity in an
order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute
subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons, renders the order
indefensible/unsustainable, particularly when the order is subject to
Page 13 of 16
further challenge before a higher forum. Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of
Bihar1.
24. Giving reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial
and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and it is the only
indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken,
as well the fact that the Court concerned had applied its mind. State of
Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar2.
25. In Kranthi Associates Private Limited and another Vs. Masood
Ahmed Khan and others3, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized qua the
reasons in an order as follow:
“47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons,
even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone
prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its
conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider
principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to
be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any
possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even
administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the
decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous
considerations.
1
(2003) 11 SCC 519
2
(2004) 5 SCC 568 : AIR 2004 SC 1794
3
(2010) 9 SCC 496
Page 14 of 16
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of
a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by
judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior
Courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of
law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based
on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making
justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as
different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these
decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason
that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is
important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency.
(k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough
about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know
whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to
principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and
succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons’ is not to be
equated with a valid decision making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of
restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not
only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also
makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of
Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the
broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now
virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of
Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain, (1994) 19 EHRR 553,
at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405,
Page 15 of 16wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human
Rights which requires,
“adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial
decisions”.
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in
setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law,
requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is
virtually a part of “Due Process”.
26. Given the discussion made supra, since the petitioners crossed 45
years by the date of promotion, the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.154 dated
05.07.2021 regarding Training & Regularization of Service, in the opinion
of this Court do not apply to the petitioners. This court should not be
oblivious to the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.225 General Administration
(SER.C) Department, dated 18.05.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.391 dated
19.10.2015. This Court is of the view that there cannot be discrimination
in the feeder category employees who crossed 45 years to the post of
Senior Assistant. As observed supra, all the petitioners, by the date of
their promotion, crossed 45 years of age. The petitioners possessed
degree qualifications and hence they were considered for promotion by
excluding seniors, who did not have degree qualifications. The authority
failed to consider all these aspects, including reasons, and passed the
order impugned and hence the same is liable to be set aside.
27. Accordingly, the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide
Ref.Admin.2/e-37541/2024, dated 19.08.2024 (Ex.P1) is set aside. Since
some of the VROs promoted to Senior Assistants qualified in
departmental tests, and the petitioners failed to qualify for the tests, this
order will not preclude the respondent authorities from passing
appropriate orders keeping clarifications in G.O.Ms.No.225 dated
Page 16 of 16
18.05.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.391 dated 19.10.2015 and the Rules in
vogue.
28. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is Allowed. No order as
to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Note: LR Copy to be marked
B/O
PVD
[ad_1]
Source link