IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 18676 of 2008 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Ltd., Work Inspector's Welfare Association (OS), Hyderabad, rep. by its State President, Mr.Vamanagiri Hanumanna S/o.Jammanna, Aged 36 years, Occ: Work Inspector (Out Sourcing), 47-56-3C, Bhdhavarpet, Kurnool, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, 3-6- 184, Urdugally, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 3 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad. 4 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 5 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor. 6 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Cuddapah District, Cuddapah. 7 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur. 8 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 9 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool. 10 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar. 11 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District, Mahabubnagar. 12 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 13 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Krishna District, Vijayawada. 14 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 15 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. 16 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy. 17 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District. 18 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 19 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru. 20 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Visakhapatnam District at Visakhapatnam. 21 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Vizianagaram District at Vizianagaram. 22 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Nellore District at Nellore. 23 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Srikakulam District at Srikakulam. 24 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Nizamabad District at Nizamabad. 25 Zilla Mahila Samakhya rep. by its President, O/o District Collector, Warangal District at Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in dispensing with the services of the work inspectors of Phase-I of Indiramma programme pursuant to the Circular of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.A4/8136/2003, dt. 19.08.2008 by 31.08.2008 and contemplating to recruit fresh work inspectors through out the State through the respondents 3 to 25 who are the outsourcing agencies for Phase-III of Indiramma Programme is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the guidelines in G.O.Rt.No.4459, dt. 27.12.2006 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the work inspectors of Phase-I by setting aside the impugned circular of the 2nd respondent dt. 19.08.2008 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.U.M.V.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents No.: GP FOR HOUSING The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.18676 OF 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited Work Inspector’s Welfare Association (out source), Hyderabad seeking to declare the action of the respondents in taking steps to dispense with the services of the outsourced Work Inspectors recruited under Phase-1 of Indiramma Housing Programme with effect from 31.8.2008 by circular dated 19.8.2008 of the 2nd respondent – A.P.State Housing Corporation Limited as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, a direction is sought to the respondents to continue the outsourced Work Inspectors recruit under phase – 1 of the Indiramma Housing Programme. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Advocate General for the respondent Government. According to the petitioner, the members of its association are appointed as out sourcing Work Inspectors for executing the massive housing construction programme under taken by the State of Andhra Pradesh under Indiramma Housing Programme to meet out the work pressure, on a consolidated pay of Rs.4,500/- per month, and after deducting EPS, EFP and Professional Tax, an amount of Rs.4,040/- was being paid to them. All of them were being appointed through Zilla Mahila Samakhyas (for short ‘the Samakyas’) through out the State and in turn the 1st respondent Government is paying Rs.20/- to the Samakhyas. It is further stated at no point of time, any of its members were given any individual appointment orders and tenure was also not specified. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though its members are working without any blemish, now by the impugned order, the 2nd respondent intends to dispense with the working of the outsourcing Work Inspectors appointed initially and want to employ other Work Inspectors for Indiramma Housing Programme Phase-3 on the ground that the earlier work Inspectors were appointed only for the purpose of Indiramma Housing Programme Phase-1 and Phase-2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there was no time limit specified while appointing the outsourcing Work Inspectors initially, with a fond hope that they will be continued till the total work of Indiramma Housing Programme is completed, they left their earlier jobs and joined in the present job and by virtue of the impugned order, they are going to loose their livelihood and that since they are over aged now, they cannot get any job outside too. It is stated that the entire process of recruitment was made pursuant to the circular and guidelines issued by the official respondents from time to time and also as per G.O.Rt.No.4459 dated 27.12.2006, which prescribes the guidelines for outsourcing of supporting services in the Government Departments. Basing on the said Government Order, the Samakyas were permitted to recruit Work Inspectors and in that way they got selected. Therefore, the present action of the official respondents to dispense with the services of 3500 work inspectors appointed initially and to appoint new Work Inspectors for Indiramma Phase-III programme is illegal and cannot be sustained. This Court on 28.8.2008, while issuing notice before admission, directed the official respondents to continue the existing Work Inspectors to the extent there is need in the respective districts, unless any incumbent is facing any disciplinary proceedings and if adequate number of Work Inspectors are not already in service, it shall be open to the respective agencies to fill the balance vacancies through outsourcing. Later, on 18.9.2008, the writ petition was admitted. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent – A.P.State Housing Corporation Limited filed WVMP No.3352 of 2008 along with a counter affidavit seeking vacation of the said interim order. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the government have embarked on a massive programme for providing a pucca house to every rural/urban poor household in the state over a period of three years under the scheme ‘Indiramma Housing Programme’ in a phased manner. Under phase-1, construction of 17.60 lakh houses in rural areas at a total cost of Rs.4352.796 crores and 1.90 lakh houses in urban areas at a total cost of Rs.758.48 crores was taken up. During 2007-08, under Phase-II programme, 22,91,832 houses in rural areas at a total cost of Rs.5,729.55 crores and 2,79,329 houses in urban areas with a project cost of Rs.1117.31 crores have been taken up. Keeping in view the requirement of persons to monitor/supervise the houses under Indiramma Phase-II additional 3136 outsourcing work inspectors have been engaged. It is also stated that a massive training programme has been launched for training 38300 unemployed youth in masonry skills under the guidance of National Academy of Constrction (NAC) to overcome the shortage of manpower. In order to give effect to the Indiramma Housing Programme, the Government issued instructions to have proper staffing pattern through G.O.Ms.No.239 dated 9.9.2006 wherein it is specifically mentioned that besides regular staff, the Work Inspectors be engaged through an outsourcing agency at District Level with the condition that individual appointment letters shall not be issued in the name of the candidates and remuneration payable shall be routed through the outsourcing agency concerned at the district level as per the rates fixed by the government. In continuation of the said G.O. all the District Collectors were directed to follow the guidelines in engaging the outsourced work inspectors vide proceedings dated 27.9.2006. The 2nd respondent, in turn, vide memo dated 13.10.2006 also directed the District Managers to follow the guidelines scrupulously and allot the outsourced work inspectors to the concerned mandals indicating the work load to them and the Zilla Samakyas were requested to recruit the work inspectors on outsourcing basis. The Samakyas recruited the work inspectors after issuing notification and the selected list was sent to the concerned District Managers and as per the requirement the work inspectors were taken on outsourcing basis. The main contention advanced by the learned Advocate General is that no individual appointment order was ever issued to any individual nor payments are made to them directly and, therefore, there is no jural relationship between the 2nd respondent and the outsourced work inspectors. Earlier, the work inspectors were recruited only for the purpose of work under Indiramma Phase-1. While the matters stood thus, Phase-II of Indiramma Programme was launched and, therefore, the 2nd respondent sought permission of the government to engage few more Work Inspectors to meet the necessities and accordingly the government issued G.O.Rt.No.234 dated 26.10.2007 permitting engagement of work inspectors on outsourcing basis. Since the government has embarked on a massive construction work for the poor people of the State, it issued the circular dated 25.6.2008 prescribing the guidelines for continuance of the outsourced work inspectors basing on their performance, integrity etc., and, therefore, all the District Managers were requested to get the performance of the said work inspectors and evaluated their performance in the manner specified in the circular. After such evaluation, the Task Force Officers who were entrusted with the work of evaluation met on 18.8.2008 and made certain suggestions. It was recommended that such of the work inspectors against whom there are complaints be sent back and further appointments be made through Zilla Samakhyas. Basing on the said recommendations/suggestions, the impugned circular is issued dispensing with the services of the work inspectors recruited for the purpose of phase-1 programme. The learned Advocate General submits that after noticing that the outsourced Work Inspectors who are recruited for Phase-1 have not been properly attending to the duties leading to delay in progress of the work, the authorities thought it appropriate to dispense with their services and even though the process of selection as contemplated for phase-III programme was completed and new Work Inspectors were taken on rolls, after the interim orders were granted by this Court, it was decided by the 2nd respondent to evaluate the performance of the Work Inspectors appointed initially once again and such of those persons who have scored 75 marks be allowed to continue. It is stated that after such an exercise, the government has taken a decision to continue 1885 Work Inspectors out of 3326 Work Inspectors recruited initially. The learned Advocate General submits that since the very Indiramma programme is time bound and is meant to help the poor, if the work is delayed due to negligence or non-performance of the concerned Work Inspectors, it would not be proper to continue the same persons and, therefore, such of those Work Inspectors only were removed and such of those work inspectors whose performance is satisfactory, were continued. That apart, the question of taking any disciplinary action against those persons would not arise as they are not employees of the Corporation and they are not appointed by the Corporation. They were recruited only for time bound period and if the work is over, they have no right to continue. Thus, the impugned circular, which is issued after evaluating the performance levels of the Work Inspectors recruited initially cannot be questioned by the petitioner association. Though an objection has been initially taken by the learned Advocate General in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition filed by an unregistered association, he has not pressed the same in view of filing of similar writ petitions by the individual work inspectors. A perusal of the material placed before this Court clearly indicates that the programme of construction of houses to poor people of the State of Andhra Pradesh under the scheme known as ‘Indiramma Housing Programme’, though is a massive construction programme, it is a temporary programme taken up by the government. To achieve the targets fixed by the government, it gave permission to recruit personnel on outsourcing basis by the Samakyas through out the State. Admittedly, no individual appointment orders were issued and payments were made directly. Everything has been done through Samakyas only. Even though the Work Inspectors were appointed initially for the purpose of Phase-1 constructions, since phase-II also launched, they were continued. However, their services were sought to be dispensed with for phase-III programme by the government basing on the evaluation report given by the Task Force Committee with regard to their performance levels and their integrity. Though it is contended that the appointment of the Work Inspectors is based on G.O.Ms.No.4459 dated 27.12.2006, a perusal of it makes it clear that the said G.O. was issued only in regard to the outsourcing of supporting services in the government departments and the said G.O. has nothing to do with the appointment of the work Inspectors by the Samakyas for the purpose of achieving the goal of the government i.e., constructing houses for the poor people of the state. That apart, it is a temporary programme. The appointment of the Work Inspectors on outsourcing through Zilla Mahila Samkhyas is governed by G.O.Rt.No.234 dated 26.10.2007. As per the averments made in the counter, it is clear that as long as the services of the Work Inspectors recruited initially was upto the mark, they were continued and only those work inspectors services, whose performance was not satisfactory, were dispensed with. As the Corporation is committed to complete the programme meant for upliftment of poor and when the Work Inspectors are not up to the mark, continuing them would defeat the very purpose of the welfare measure. Since the availability of the work only is not a precondition and taking the best available candidates for better performance is an important factor for completing the massive construction programme as such taken by the State Government, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the authorities to continue those work inspectors whose performance levels and whose integrity is not satisfactory for them. Further, there is no jural relation ship between the government and the work inspectors appointed on outsourcing. That apart, it is brought to the notice of this Court that after the interim orders of this Court, the 2nd respondent has decided to redo the evaluation made by the Task Force Officers and such of those persons who have scored 75 marks were decided to be continued and after such an exercise, 1885 Work Inspectors out of 3326 Work Inspectors recruited initially were continued. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the interim order earlier granted shall stand vacated. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J DT. msv