THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.21407 of 1999 Dated:11.08.2011 Between: Smt.K.Narsamamba, And others. … Petition And The Principal Secretary to Government, Govt.of A.P., Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, And others. ... Responde THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.21407 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioners were appointed as typists/steno typists during the pe from 1975 to 1977 in the Department of Social Welfare, Andhra Prad Secretariat. Statedly, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were converted as Junior Assista in May 1982 and the fourth petitioner was converted as Junior Assistan October 1982. The Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Service Rules, 1965, mad exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitutio India govern various ministerial services in the Secretariat. As per Rule thereof, for the purpose of appointment, seniority, reappointment and promot each department was considered to be a unit. On 20.11.1982 the Departme Promotion Committee (DPC) met for considering the candidates in the cadr Junior Assistants/Typists for four posts of Assistant Section Officers (ASOs Social Welfare Department. The DPC did not recommend the names of petitioners as they did not have the previous qualifying service in the plen cadre of Junior Assistants. It appears, in May and November 1982 the Andhra Pradesh Secreta Association represented to the Government to treat all the Departments of Secretariat as a single unit. The Government considered it favourably. G.O.Ms.No.235, General Administration (Services-D) Department, da 08.04.1983, the Government ordered to constitute all categories in Secretariat service except the Law, Finance & Planning and Legisla Departments, into a single unit with effect from 08.01.1983. The Departme were advised to communicate the service particulars of Assista Typists/Steno Typists, UD Stenos etc., for preparation of integrated senio lists. The system of having a separate DPC for each Department w dispensed with and only one DPC for drawing panels for promotion in Department of Secretariat was directed to be constituted. Thus, with effect f 08.01.1983 the artificial division of various posts in Secretariat service w removed and all the posts were constituted in Secretariat service. The petitioners were subsequently promoted as ASOs. The Governm issued U.O.Note No.255/SU.II/95-4, dated 30.06.1995, clarifying that two ye qualifying service as Junior Assistant need not be insisted upon in the cas Typists converted as Junior Assistants. Probably, emboldened by this, petitioners made a representation to the Government on 01.09.1995 reques the Government in Social Welfare Department to consider their claim promotion as ASO with effect from 20.11.1982. They stated before Government that the DPC did not consider their case as they did not poss the requisite qualifying service of two years in the lower category and subsequently the Government vide U.O.Note dated 30.06.1995 clarified position to the effect that such qualifying service need not be put in in the c of conversion of Typists as Junior Assistants. The Government then propo to promote the petitioners as ASOs with effect from 1982, and constitute review DPC for consideration of the petitioners’ case in the meeting held 08.07.1998. The proposal was favourably considered by the review DPC. per the recommendation, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.515, So Welfare Department, dated 19.08.1998, promoting the petitioners as ASOs w effect from 20.11.1982 by placing their names below the name of Smt.L.Vijayalaxmi, who was promoted on 01.05.1982. This order was assa before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by respondent Nos.3 to Respondent No.3 was promoted as ASO on 28.04.1982 in Agricul Department, and respondent Nos.4 to 6 were promoted as ASOs with ef from 15.04.1984, 01.07.1981 and 01.07.1981 respectively in the Medica Health Department. They contended that granting of notional promotion to petitioners retrospectively without notice to them and others is in violatio principles of natural justice; after the constitution of Secretariat service into single unit with effect from 08.01.1983, all the Departments are merged in feeder category, and therefore, a separate review DPC for Social Wel Department is unsustainable; that by granting notional promotion, Government cannot unsettle the settled things after long lapse of fifteen year The learned Tribunal referred to the relevant Secretariat Service Ru and a score of decisions of the Supreme Court and came to the conclusion the Government Order impugned in the O.A is in violation of principles of nat justice for want of notice to others and the effect of giving retrospective notio promotion is illegal and that the Government has no power to consti separate DPC for Social Welfare Department after the merger of services single category. Accordingly, the O.A was allowed quashing G.O.Rt.No.5 dated 19.08.1998. This order is assailed in the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners relies on Rule 8 of the Andhra Prad Secretariat Service Rules, 1965, and contends that the formal conversio Typists for being considered to the posts of Assistants (redesignated as AS is not required, and therefore, when the DPC rejected the case of the petition in November 1982, it was clearly unsustainable. When the review D rectifies the mistake and grants notional promotion to the petitioners, the sa does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Secondly submits that immediately after knowing their non-consideration to the post ASO, the petitioners made representation, and therefore, the question of de and lapse would not arise. Lastly, he would contend that as the review DPC only rectifying the mistake in view of the subsequent Government clarifica dated 30.06.1995, in law, no notice is required to anybody. These contenti are refuted by the learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6, 8 9 to 11. The first point by the petitioners is with reference to Rule 8. Indeed, s a plea was not raised before the learned Tribunal. Nevertheless, we h considered the submission and find no merit. Rule 8 deals with proportio recruitment to the posts of Assistants. It contemplates that out of every e successive substantive vacancies among the posts of Assistants, the vacancy shall be filled by a transferee, two vacancies shall be filled or reser to be filled by direct recruitment and the remaining five vacancies shall be fi by promotion of Junior Assistants and of Typists including Steno-Typists in ratio of 4:1. Admittedly, the DPC which met on 20.11.1982, considered candidates i.e., the Junior Assistants for the posts of four vacancies. In absence of any material as to whether they were also considering to fill up vacancy earmarked for Typists i.e., in the ratio of 4:1, it is not possible to acc the plea that they were eligible as on that date. Even according to th petitioners 1 to 3 were converted as Junior Assistants on 06.05.1982 petitioner No.4 was converted as Junior Assistant on 07.10.1982. Obviou they did not have a qualifying service as on 20.11.1982, and therefore, decision of the DPC to pass over the cases of the petitioners cannot be fault If it can be shown that the DPC was considering as many as twenty vacanc of Assistants the formula in Rule 8 would have to be operated. In the abse of any factual background on this aspect, the submission cannot be accept The plea that in 1984 itself the petitioners made a representation cannot accepted for two reasons. First, the G.O.Rt.No.515 refers to the representa made by the petitioners on 01.09.1995 and also sums up their grievance. Th is no dispute that the petitioners made such a representation only after Government issued clarification vide U.O.Note.No.255/SU.II/95-4, da 30.06.1995. When the representation was made based on the said memo, rather preposterous to contend that they had made such representation in 1 itself. The submission is, therefore, rejected. The question of violation of principles of natural justice has to considered with reference to the Government Order, being G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 08.04.1983. Till the issue of the said order, Rule 13(1) constitu separate units in each department of Secretariat for the purpose of senio promotion etc. But, with effect from 08.01.1983 the Secretariat service w constituted as a single unit. Thereafter, the concept of having DPC for each or preparation of integrated unit list was replaced by constitution of single D for the entire secretariat service. Admittedly, the petitioners’ case was pla before the review DPC of Government in Social Welfare Department. After integration of services if a separate review DPC is constituted, it would certa disentitle the unified category. Even assuming such a DPC is possible to u great injustice, those people who are likely to be affected must receive a not especially, when the Government issued orders in 1998 after lapse of fift years. Therefore, we feel compelled to countenance the submission of Coun for the unofficial respondents that the Government Order granting retrospec notional promotion to the petitioners has the effect of disintegrated serv which has not been accepted by the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Teach Association v Association of the Heads of the Government (B Wing) H & Higher Secondary Schools[1]. Further, as observed by us, in the abse of notice to all the affected parties who were already promoted to the post ASOs, it would certainly result in civil consequences, and therefore, the orde the Government is unsustainable. Learned Tribunal has considered e aspect of the matter in great detail and we do not find any grave error appa on the face of the record warranting interference in writ proceedings. The Writ Petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed with costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO ________________ (K.G.SHANKAR 11.08.2011 vs [1] AIR 1998 SC 2267