IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) Date.16 – 12 - 2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.26110 of 2001 Between: G. Sivarama Prasad. - - - Petitioner. A n d 1) The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Guntur, Guntur District. 2) The Municipal Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Guntur, Guntur District. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.26110 of 2001 ORDER: Whether the order in R.C.No.6919/1998/E1, dated 07-12-2001 of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Guntur (first respondent herein) placing the petitioner under suspension on the ground that he has not undergone apprenticeship in the trade of electrician is valid or not is the point that arises for determination in this Writ Petition. 2) The point arises in the following circumstances. The petitioner initially worked as an NMR worker in Guntur Municipality and his services were regularized in the year 1989 and was absorbed in the time scale of Rs.740-1150 and subsequently, he was allotted to the Engineering department and was working as Pump operator. Prior to January, 1991 with the permission of the municipal engineer he studied and appeared for the All India Trade Test in the trade of Electrician and passed it in January, 1991 and was subsequently promoted as Electrician by the first respondent’s order in ROC No.6919/1999/E1, dated 13-10-1999 and was posted in the existing vacancy. At the relevant time of suspension, he was working as Electrician at Mangalagiri pump house in the Guntur Municipal Corporation after the Guntur Municipality became a corporation. While matters stood thus, the first respondent passed the above mentioned impugned order dated 07-12-2001, placing him under suspension on the ground that he has not undergone apprenticeship in the trade of electrician. 3) The case of the petitioner is that there were some disputes with regard to his family’s house property between his mother and one M. Sudhakar who was related to them and that said Sudhakar became a corporator of the 8th division in the elections held prior to the suspension order. The petitioner’s version is that the said Sudhakar made certain allegations against him and was bent upon getting him removed from service and because of those allegations, the first respondent ultimately came to pass the impugned order without any basis. The petitioner’s further version is that as per the service rules governing his appointment, undergoing apprenticeship in the trade of electrician is not a precondition for appointment by promotion as an electrician and consequently the impugned order is illegal. He also stated that he studied the electrician trade course with the permission of the competent authority and that the above mentioned Sudhakar also made an allegation that he prosecuted the said study without permission which is incorrect. On these grounds the petitioner filed this Writ petition questioning the impugned order. The other details are not necessary. 4) One Sri M. Praveen Prakash, the then Commissioner of Guntur Municipal Corporation, filed counter opposing this writ petition. He pleaded that the petitioner’s allegation that it was Sudhakar who brought about his suspension is incorrect and stated that it was done in accordance with the rules. He also pleaded that the petitioner has prosecuted the studies in the trade of electrician while in service without the permission of the competent authority. He then stated that petitioner has not undergone apprenticeship and that it is a prerequisite for promotion and that he got the promotion misleading the first respondent’s office and that therefore, the suspension order is valid. 5) This matter first came up for hearing on 25- 11-2010 and the learned counsel for the petitioner was heard but the respondents counsel was absent as his name was not printed in the cause list. Thereafter, the matter was again posted to 02-12-2010 with a direction to print the name of the respondents counsel. On the said date, a wrong name was printed and again the matter was posted to 09-12-2010 with a direction to print the correct name which was done. Then on said date also the respondents counsel did not turn up. It should now be noted here that when this writ petition came up for admission, the impugned order was suspended by this Court and the said interim suspension continues to be in force. 6) Now coming to the point it is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the pleadings of both sides in view of the further information given by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the developments that took place during the pendency of the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the proceedings No.E4(2)/32045/2008/Unit-III, dated 15-07-2008 of the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad and it shows that the petitioner was subsequently appointed by transfer as a Municipal Assistant Engineer in the Guntur Municipal Corporation and later on administrative grounds he was transferred in that capacity to the Municipal Corporation, Nellore. 7) The above order dated 15-07-2008 of the Engineer-in-Chief would show that the petitioner was subsequently promoted as Municipal Assistant Engineer and initially posted in the Guntur Municipal Corporation and later on he was transferred to Municipal Corporation, Nellore. This order shows that the earlier suspension order dated 07-12-2001 did not come in the way of the petitioner being promoted as Municipal Assistant Engineer. The said order dated 15-07-2008 of the Chief Engineer, in other words shows that respondents did not take any further action against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order of suspension or any action taken thereon ended in favour of the petitioner. The learned standing counsel for the Respondents did not appear to inform the Court what transpired after the passing of the suspension order questioned in this writ petition and the above order of the Chief Engineer only shows that whatever has happened subsequent to the suspension order dated 07-12-2001 ended in favour of the petitioner and he got further promotion also. 8) One more aspect which should be noted is that the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a copy of G.O.Ms. No.584, Municipal Administration, dated 10-05- 1979 to show that for being appointed or promoted as an electrician Grade-II which post is shown as Item No.7 in the annexure to the said G.O. one must possess only a trade certificate in the electrical trade and that apprenticeship certificate is not necessary. This is also pleaded in para-5 of the affidavit of the writ petitioner filed in support of the writ petition. The counter of the Respondent No.1 does not deal with this G.O. No.564 and the annexure to it shows that for the post of electrician Grade-II apprenticeship certificate is not necessary. Thus, the above circumstance plus the order dated 15-07-2008 of the Engineer-in-Chief which shows that the petitioner was subsequently promoted as Municipal Assistant Engineer also are plus points for the petitioner and are enough to set aside the impugned order of suspension. 9) Accordingly, the point is decided in favour of the petitioner and this Writ petition is allowed and impugned order of suspension is set aside. No costs. ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J Dt.16-12-2010. Dsh/CVRK