IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11920 of 1999 Between: M. Apparao, S/o. Veerabhadraiah, R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Director General and Inspector General of Prisons and the Director of Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 Commissioner of Juvenile Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4 The Superintendent, Juvenile Home for boys, Visakhapatnam. 5 Sri. M.A. Mannan, Superintendent, Central Jail, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. 6 P.R. Patnaik, Superintendent, Central Jail, Visakhapatnam. 7 Sri.A. Umakanth Rao, Superintendent, Central Jail, Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 8 Sri. C.V.Chari, Superintendent, Central Jail, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. 9 Sri. N.V.Sharma, Superintendent, District Jail, Nellore, Nellore District. 10 Sri. Ch. George, Superintendent, Central Jail, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 11 Sri. D. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, Superintendent, Office of D.I.G. of Prisons, Cuddapah. 12 Sri. M. Jampaiah, Superintendent, Central Jail, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 13 Sri. M.D. Padmanabham, Superintendent, Central Jail, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. ..... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the connected records from the Respondent NOs.1 and 2 and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.NO. 452/94, dated 4-3-1999, confirming the order of the 2nd Respondent in Proceedings NO. EA.2/1348/93, dated 10-1-1994 and to direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to send the Petitioner back from Juvenile Welfare Department to Jail Department with all the consequential benefits from 10-4-1990 including Seniority Pay and other allowances and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.RANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11920 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The petitioner was appointed as a Typist with effect from 06.04.2007 in the Jail Department and thereafter, he was promoted as a Senior Assistant with effect from 10.05.1981 and his probation was declared on 10.05.1982. Thereafter, he was posted as a Senior Assistant in the Office of the Superintendent, Government Juvenile Home for Boys, Visakhapatnam, which was part and parcel of the Jail Department. While so, in the year 1990, the Government of India had taken a decision to implement the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and accordingly a separate Directorate for proper and effective implementation of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, was created to provide care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation to the neglected and delinquent juveniles and for adjudication of certain matters relating to and disposition of delinquent juveniles. Pursuant to the above said poIicy decision of the Government of India, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.116 Womens’ Development Child Welfare and Labour (JJ) Department dated 10.04.1990. According to the said G.O., out of four ministerial sections working in the Probation Wing, two sections shall be transferred to the new Directorate of Juvenile Welfare Department, and personnel officiating for the Probation wing shall be initially sent on deputation for a period of three years to the Directorate of Juvenile Welfare and that all the juvenile institutions including Chief Guidance Bureau at Hyderabad are transferred to the Directorate of Juvenile Welfare Department. 2. The petitioner is admittedly working as a Senior Assistant in the Juvenile institution at Visakhapatnam. Certain new posts were created in the Directorate of Juvenile Welfare and as there was some ambiguity as to whether options have to be called for or not from the persons, who are working in the Juvenile institutions as all the posts and personnel working in the Juvenile institutions were transferred to the Directorate of Juvenile Welfare, the Commissioner, Juvenile Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, obtained options and the petitioner also exercised his option giving his unwillingness to work in the Directorate of Juvenile Welfare Department and he has opted to work in the Prisons Department. Accordingly, the said options were communicated by the Commissioner, Juvenile Welfare Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, to the Director General and Inspector General of Prisons and the Director of Correctional Services, A.P., Hyderabad, vide his letter, dated 19.07.1993. But, however, the Director General and Inspector General of Prisons and Director of Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, vide proceedings, dated 27.07.1993, held that the options are required to be called for from the persons, who are working on deputation in the Juvenile institutions, but not from the persons working in the Juvenile institutions and accordingly, the Commissioner, Juvenile Welfare was informed that as per G.O.Ms.No.116,dated 10.04.1990, all the Juvenile institutions including Chief Guidance Bureau at Hyderabad, were transferred to the Directorate of Juvenile Welfare with posts and personnel. Hence, the question of calling willingness from the personnel working in the Juvenile institutions does not arise. 3. Thereafter, the options were called for from the employees, who were working on deputation only and the petitioner also exercised his option to work in the Prisons Department and the representation of the petitioner, exercising his option to work in the Prisons Department and to consider his case for promotion to the post of Jailor was rejected by the 2nd respondent-Director General and Inspector General of Prisons and the Director of Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, vide letter dated 10.01.1994 stating that his case for appointment as Jailor by transfer of service cannot be considered as there is no provision in Rules for appointment of persons working in other Departments as Jailors in the Prisons Department. Aggrieved by the said letter dated 10.01.1994, the petitioner filed O.A.No.452 of 1994 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 04.03.1999, dismissed the said O.A. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that when he was working in the Prisons Department, there cannot be any justification in calling for options from the persons, who are working on deputation, as all of them are working in the Prisons Department only. It is stated that merely because the petitioner is working in the Juvenile institution, it cannot be said that he is not working in the Prisons Department. In fact, he has also exercised his option to work in the Prisons Department, which was recommended by the Commissioner, Juvenile Welfare, and therefore, the rejection of his request to consider his case for promotion as a Jailor is illegal and unsustainable. 5. Heard both sides. 6. A Perusal of clause (4) of G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 10.04.1990, indicates that all the Juvenile institutions including the Chief Guidance Bureau at Hyderabad, were transferred to the newly set up Directorate of Juvenile Welfare with posts and personnel. It appears that the Department has not asked options from all the employees, who are working in the Juvenile institutions, but only options were called for from the employees, who are working on deputation, as some of the personnel officiating in the Probation Wing were initially sent on deputation. But, the Commissioner, Juvenile Welfare Department sent options exercised by the petitioner as well as others. None of the options exercised by the persons working in the Juvenile institutions opting to work in the Prisons Department was accepted. It is stated that except the petitioner, no one is aggrieved by transferring the persons working in the Juvenile institutions to the newly created Directorate of the Juvenile Welfare Department. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has not questioned the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 10.04.1990. As per clause 10(4) of the said G.O., all the Juvenile institutions including the Juvenile Home for Boys, Visakhapatnam, where the petitioner is working, were transferred to the Directorate of Juvenile Welfare and the same has been clarified by the Directorate, General and Inspector General of Prisons and the Director of Correctional Services vide his order dated 27.07.1993. The petitioner has not even questioned the said order of the Director General and Inspector General of Prisons and the Director of Correctional Services dated 27.07.1993, wherein, it was specifically stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 10-04-1990, the entire staff of the Juvenile institutions were transferred to the new set up Directorate of Juvenile Welfare with posts and personnel. 8. Though we are of the opinion that there cannot be any justification on the part of the Government in not giving options to the persons working in the Juvenile institutions, as admittedly, all the Juvenile institutions were part and parcel of the Prisons Department, but in the absence of questioning the said clause (4) of G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 10.04.1990, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise in the impugned order, so as to call for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 27-07-2009 Kl/Prv