IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 19532 of 2008 Between: M. Chandra Bhushan Reddy S/o. Late Ganga Reddy O/o. Cane Development Council, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Sugar) Department, Secretariat, Saifabad Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner & Director Sugar & Cane Commissioner ate Opp. Police Control Room, Shankar Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3 M. Rama Krishnaiah S/o. Kotaiah, Pitchatur Teachers' Colony, Chittoor District. 4 Ch. Narsi Reddy S/o. Sathi Reddy Pappula Street Stone house pet Nellore District. 5 M. Satya Narayana S/o. M.K. Prakash Rao Rama Chandrapuram, East Godavari District. 6 Ch. Venkata Ravi S/o. Ch. Satya Narayana Kallur, Khammam District. 7 S. Srinivas S/o. S. Venkaiah Palair, Khammam District. 8 A. Seetha Rama Rao S/o. Bhadraiah, O/o. Assistant Cane Commissioner, AGK Nagar, Thotla Vallur Road, Vuyyur, Krishna District. 9 M. Ravinder Rao S/o. Rajaiah R/o.1-2-867, Rakashipet, Nizamabad District. 10 G. Muthyalu S/o. Basavaiah O/o. Assistant Cane Commissioner, Alamurivari Street, Tanuku. 11 Musali John Victor S/o. Penchelaiah R/o.7-70, Main Road Podalakur, Nellore District. 12 G.V.V. Satya Narayana S/o. Ganga Raju R/o. Chagallu, West Godavari 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 issue a writ, direction or order, more particularly in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the orders in O.A.No.2940/2005 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal by calling the records relating thereto. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 18-07-2008 in O.A. No.2940 of 2005 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”). The petitioner, while working as Agricultural Officer in Agriculture department, was deputed to work as Assistant Sugar Cane Inspector (now Cane Regulation Inspector) on tenure basis in terms of Rule 3 of A.P. Sugar Service Special Rules (for short “the Rules”) issued vide G.O. Ms. No.326, dated 11-9-1992 when the subject of ‘sugar’ was separated from Agriculture department and allotted to be dealt by the Industries & Commerce (Sugar) department (for short “Sugar department”) in pursuance of A.P. Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961 (for short the “Act”). In relaxation of Rule 3 of the Rules, made under Rule 31 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, the petitioner was absorbed as Cane Regulation Inspector in Sugar department in terms of G.O. Ms. No.188 Industries and Commerce (Sugar) Department, dated 20-06-2003 on condition that he shall take last rank among approved probationers in the absorbed category of Cane Regulation Inspectors. It is stated that in pursuance of G.O. Ms. No.188, the 2nd respondent issued Memo No.E1/4325/2004, dated 06-08-2004 calling for objections to the provisional seniority list showing the petitioner between the candidates at serial Nos.5 and 6 in the category of Cane Regulation Inspectors. Questioning the said G.O. and the Memo, respondents 3 to 12 herein filed O.A. No.2940 of 2005 before the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal by order dated 18-07-2008 upheld G.O. Ms. No.188, by setting aside the Memo dated 06-08-2004, which is impugned in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the seniority list, the petitioner has to be placed and shown in between employees whose names figure at S.No.5 and 6, as was being done in case of employees, who were absorbed into Sugar department from Agriculture department as Cane Regulation Inspector. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that as per G.O. Ms. No.188, the petitioner was absorbed as Cane Regulation Inspector subject to condition that he shall take last rank among the approved probationers in the absorbed category of Cane Regulation Inspectors and in fact, the petitioner by letter dated 16-05-2003 addressed to the Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, expressed his willingness to take such last rank as specified in the said G.O., but the 2nd respondent issued Memo dated 06-08-2004 showing the petitioner in the seniority list in between the candidates, who are shown at serial Nos.5 and 6 as against his earlier seniority which stood at serial No.25 while he was working on deputation, and the same is illegal and against the rules. We have considered the rival submissions made by both the counsel. Admittedly, the petitioner is now working as Cane Regulation Inspector in Sugar Department and his absorption in the Sugar Department is governed by G.O. Ms. No.188, which stipulates that the petitioner shall take last rank among the approved probationers in the absorbed category of Cane Regulation Inspectors. A reading of para-4 of the said G.O. makes it clear that the petitioner, who was on deputation to the Sugar Department, has to take the last rank in the list of approved probationers in the absorbed category of Cane Regulation Inspectors. It is seen from the Memo dated 06-08-2004 that the petitioner was sought to be placed between P.Mahipal Reddy (S.No.5) and P.Veeraswamy (S.No.6) in the seniority list of Cane Regulation Inspectors, on the premise that the petitioner was working in the Sugar Department by virtue of proceedings dated 23-12-1992. In fact, the petitioner was a deputationist in the Sugar Department by then, whereas P.Veeraswamy (S.No.6) joined in the Department on 14-09-1995 along with other candidates who were directly recruited as Cane Regulation Inspectors through APPSC. The petitioner was actually absorbed in the Sugar Department in the year 2003 by which time, he was placed at S.No.25 in the seniority list of the said category. When the petitioner was willing to take the last rank in the list of approved probationers and he was a deputationist at the relevant point of time, he cannot claim any right or preference over the approved probationers borne on the Sugar Department in the guise of the said Memo. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly set aside the Memo, which was issued contrary to the G.O. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 09-09-2008 Svv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Sugar) Department, Govt. of A.P., Secretariat, Saifabad Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner & Director, Sugar & Cane Commissionerate Opp. Police Control Room, Shankar Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3. 2CCs to 4. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}