IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.17121 OF 2008 DATED:22.07.2010 Between: Smt. Ch. Mahalaxmi and others … Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Social Welfare Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.17121 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are appointed as Executive Officers in the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited (for short, “the Corporation”). Each District Office of the Corporation is to be headed by an Executive Director. Under the Service Regulations of the Corporation, the post of Executive Director is to be filled up by deputation from various departments. The Government issued G.O. Ms. No.151, Social Welfare (SCP-II) Department, dt.27.12.1996, stipulating guidelines for selection and posting of Executive Directors. Four categories, namely, (a) Deputy Directors/Joint Directors of Social Welfare Department; (b) Special Grade Deputy Collectors from Revenue Department; (c) Special Category Deputy Registrars and Joint Registrars from Cooperative Department; and (d) Assistant Conservator of Forest etc., of the Forest Department were held to be eligible for being posted as Executive Directors in the ratio of 25% in each category. This was followed by G.O. Ms. No.69, dt.30.8.2004 in which category – ‘c’ referred to above was substituted by the category of Executive Officers of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Cooperative Finance Corporation. In that G.O. itself it was mentioned that detailed guidelines will be issued separately. The Government issued G.O. Rt. No.444, dt.14.10.2004 providing for appointment of Selection Committee and selection of Executive Directors with the Corporation. The eligibility criteria and percentage of representation mentioned in G.O. Ms. No.151, dt.27.12.1996 and G.O. Ms. No.69, dt.30.8.2004 were held to be in tact. However, shortly thereafter, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.354, dt.8.9.2006, prescribing detailed procedure for selection of various officials of different organizations such as Project Director, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA), Executive Director, Social Welfare Department, Executive Director, Backward Classes Welfare Department, Assistant Project Coordinators, School Education Department etc. Uniform selection procedure was prescribed. Further, the eligibility of the candidates for being appointed as Executive Director of the Corporation as stipulated in G.O. Ms. No.151, dt.27.12.1996 and G.O. Ms. No.69, dt.30.8.2004 was retained. In view of this development, the Government issued G.O. Rt. No.401, dt.7.6.2008 cancelling orders in G.O. Rt. No.444, dt.14.10.2004. The petitioners were appointed as Executive Directors on deputation basis on various dates in the years 2004 and 2005. Their grievance is that though their appointment and selection fits into the procedure prescribed under G.O. Ms. No.354, dt.8.9.2006, they are sought to be replaced by others. They pray for regularization of their service in the post of Executive Directors and for quashing of G.O. Rt. No.401 dt.9.6.2008 which in turn may lead to revival of G.O. Rt. No.444, dt.14.10.2004. Ancillary reliefs are also claimed. The respondents have filed counter affidavits opposing the writ petition. It is stated that G.O. Rt. No.444, dt.14.10.2004 was cancelled on account of the fact that a comprehensive and detailed procedure has been prescribed under G.O. Ms. No.354, dt.8.9.2006. As regards the claim of the petitioners, it is stated that they have completed the period of deputation and they are no more eligible to be appointed on deputation. Heard Sri Andapalli Sanjeev Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation. Before they came to be appointed as Executive Directors, the petitioners were working in various other departments on deputation, though their appointment as such was in the Corporation itself. After cancelling the deputation in other departments, the Government appointed the petitioners as Executive Directors once again calling it as ‘on deputation’. Though an employee of an organization cannot be appointed in the same on deputation, this became necessary because of the service regulations. It appears there is some foul play. The reason is that no employee working in the same department can be said to be appointed on deputation in that very organization. Four categories of employees were found eligible for being appointed as Executive Directors, on deputation. They are mentioned in G.O. Ms. No.151, dt.27.12.1996 read with G.O. Ms. No.69, dt.30.8.2004. The result was that the Executive Officers of the Corporation, to the extent of 25% of the total strength of Executive Directors, were made eligible to be appointed on deputation. Till G.O. Rt. No.444, dt.14.10.2004 was issued, no process of selection was prescribed for appointment to the posts of Executive Directors. Hardly before that G.O. was put into action, it came to be superceded by G.O. Rt. No.401, dt.7.6.2008. This was on account of the fact that G.O. Ms. No.354, dt.8.9.2006 was issued prescribing guidelines not only for the post of Executive Director of the Corporation, but also for other similar positions, in different organizations. A perusal of G.O. Ms. No.354, dt.8.9.2006, insofar as it relates to the post of Executive Director of the Corporation discloses that as against the four categories of employees who hither to were eligible for the post, three categories alone are retained. The Executive Officers of the Corporation continue to be eligible for being appointed as Executive Directors. In the counter affidavit, it is stated on behalf of the respondents that as long as the incumbents in categories 1 and 2, namely, (a) Special Grade Deputy Collectors or Deputy Collectors and (b) Joint Directors or Deputy Directors of the Departments of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry etc., are available, the third category, namely, the Executive Officers of the Corporation need not be considered. This contention cannot be accepted. In clear and categorical terms, clause 5.1 (f) (iii) of G.O. Ms. No.354, dt.8.9.2006 renders the candidates mentioned in G.O. Ms.151 dt.27.12.1996 read with G.O. Ms. No.69, dt.30.8.2004 eligible to be considered. Since three categories retained, the ratio has to be modified to be 33 1/3rd, for each category. Though the petitioners challenge G.O. Rt. No.401, dt.9.6.2008, through which G.O. Rt. No.444, dt.14.10.2004 is cancelled, this Court is not inclined to accept their contention. The reason is that it is always competent for the Government to prescribe the selection process and such comprehensive process has been fixed through G.O. Ms. No.354, dt.8.9.2006. At any rate, the petitioners do not have any fundamental right either to be considered or to be continued as the Executive Directors, in deviation from the prescribed procedure. Coming to the prayer of the petitioners for regularization of their service as Executive Directors, it is evident that the service regulations of the Corporation clearly mandate that the post of Executive Director is to be filled up only by way of deputation. The question of regularization of services of any incumbent who is sent on deputation does not arise. The question as to whether the petitioners are eligible to be considered in terms of G.O. Ms. No.354, dt.8.9.2006 once again depend upon their eligibility. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of upholding G.O. Rt. No.401, dt.9.6.2008 and rejecting the claim of the petitioners for the post of Executive Directors, but directing that their cases shall be considered in terms of G.O. Ms. No.354, dt.8.9.2006, if they are otherwise eligible. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 22.07.2010 bnr