HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 22617 of 2009. DATED 10th November, 2009 BETWEEN E.Mallesh …….Petitioner and Y.Ashok and ors …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 22617 of 2009. ORDER: ( Per VVA.J.) The third respondent in O.A.No. 8684 of 2009 challenges the final order dated 19.10.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in the said OA. The first respondent herein is the applicant, who approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal questioning the orders of the Commissioner, Food Processing & Commissioner & Director of Agricultural Marketing, in proceedings No. Estt.Govt./4323/2009, dated 16.7.2009 whereby the petitioner herein was transferred and posted as Deputy Director of Marketing Warangal as per the option exercised in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 169, Fin.(W&M) Department, dated 17.6.2009. The case of the first respondent before the Tribunal was that he as well as the petitioner are in the category of Deputy Director of Marketing and serving as Selection Grade Secretaries and discharging their duties as such at Karimnagar and Narsampet respectively. It is not in dispute that the first respondent herein is senior to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that while the first respondent was serving at Karimnagar for two years approximately, the petitioner was serving at Narsampet for eight months approximately from December 2008. It was the case of the first respondent that he also gave option for transfer to Warangal, but, ignoring his case, the petitioner was transferred to Warangal by the order of the Commissioner, Food Processing & Commissioner & Director of Agricultural Marketing, in proceedings No. Estt.Govt./4323/2009, dated 16.7.2009.The ground on which the first respondent questioned the said order dated 16.7.2009 before the Tribunal was that the post of Deputy Director of Marketing is a post which has supervisory jurisdiction over five districts which includes the Marketing Committee at Karimnagar, where the first respondent is working. The grievance of the first respondent therefore was that he being a senior, the petitioner who is junior to him, cannot be posted to a place which has administratively supervisory capacity, which will subject the first respondent to the administration and supervision of the petitioner. Before the Tribunal the Government submitted a brief note and the learned Counsel for the petitioner filed written submissions. The Tribunal called for examination of the records and was of the opinion that the first respondent’s option in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 169, dated 17.6.2009 deserves for consideration on the following grounds. “1.He is undisputedly senior to the unofficial respondent. 2. He has worked for more than three years in his place of posting. 3.He has given his option as per G.Os and Rules required which was not considered. 4.Respondents have not shown any reason beyond stating ‘administrative exigencies’ which made them post the unofficial respondent No.3 as Deputy Director of Market, Warangal” The Tribunal therefore found that the Writ Petitioner being a junior psychologically gnawing on the first respondent that the junior to him presided over the crucial post, to which, in fact the first respondent is eligible and entitled to be posted. The Tribunal, accordingly set aside the order of the Commissioner, Food Processing & Commissioner & Director of Agricultural Marketing, in proceedings No. Estt.Govt./4323/2009, dated 16.7.2009. Questioning the order of the Tribunal dated 19.10.2009, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, inter alia, raising two grounds, viz., that it is misnomer and incorrect to claim that the petitioner would be administrative supervisor to the first respondent and that it is the Joint Director who supervise the Market Committees headed by the Selection Grade Secretaries in the rank of Deputy Directors of Marketing. He submits that there is no supervisory or administrative control by the Deputy Director of Marketing over the Special Grade Secretaries working in the Agricultural Market Committees such as the first respondent herein is concerned. He submits that the Deputy Director of Marketing, Warangal will not be the Administrative head over the first respondent and therefore, the petitioner cannot be the administrative supervisor over him. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon certain administrative instructions issued by the Director of Marketing in the years 2003, 2005 and 2007 etc., which are annexed to the Writ Petition. Based on the same, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that all Selection Grade Market Committees in which the first respondent is serving are under the control of the Joint Director and not Deputy Director. The second ground of attack is that as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No. 100, dated 1.5.2007, employees holding posts of 2n level gazetted and higher levels shall not be posted to the native districts. Based on the same, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent being the native of Warangal is not eligible to be considered to post at Warangal. All these contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner were considered by the Tribunal, on merits, and after examining the record and brief note submitted by the learned Government Pleader, the Tribunal was found that the petitioner had completed eight months service at Narsampet, where as the first respondent had completed two years service at Karimangar. It was also mentioned that Deputy Director of Marketing has control over five districts, viz., Adilabad, Karimnagar, Khammam, Warangal and Nalgonda. The Tribunal therefore was of the view that the case of the respondent herein deserves consideration inasmuch as the writ petitioner is junior to him. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the first respondent. Though counter affidavit was not filed by the Government before the Tribunal, in this Writ Petition, counter affidavit is filed. It is appropriate to extract some relevant paragraphs at Page 7 of the counter affidavit, which read as under: “The Regional Joint Director of Marketing have over all supervision of Deputy Director of Marketing and Assistant Directors of Marketing under their control together with the Supervision of Agricultural Market Committees under their control. Similarly, the Deputy Directors of Marketing have supervision over Ass. Directors of Marketing and Agricultural Market Committees under their control including the Agricultural Market Committees headed by a Selection Grade Secretary in the rank of Deputy Director. Whereas, the Agricultural Market Committee existing in the State are headed by the Secretaries, viz., Selection Grade, Special Grade, Grade-I, Grade-II, Grade-III, Assistant Secretary, depending upon the classification made according to the income of respective Agricultural Market Committees and they will work under the direct control of Chairman of their concerned Agricultural Market Committees and the concerned Joint Director of Marketing/Deputy Director of Marketing is over all administrative heads of the Division/Region. Hence, the Regional Director of Marketing/Deputy Directors of Marketing/Assistant Directors of Marketing will have supervision as stated above and the Chairman of the concerned Market Committee will have direct control over the Secretaries working under their control.” It is clear from the above that the grievance of the first respondent was found justified by the Tribunal. In existing reality, the Deputy Director of Marketing has supervisory jurisdiction over the Agricultural Market Committees under his control including the Agricultural Market Committees headed by the Selection Grade Secretaries, i.e. just like the Agricultural Market Committee headed by the first respondent. The finding of the Tribunal therefore that the petitioner would be exercising administrative supervisory jurisdiction over the first respondent is sustainable. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal. So far as the second ground of the learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding nativity is concerned, no doubt, guidelines as stated supra, provide that the employees holding the posts of 2nd level Gazetted posts and higher posts should not be posted in their native districts. But the vice as discussed in the first point is more serious in nature than this objection. Even the working of the Deputy Director of Marketing is not confined and focused at Warangal, but he has supervisory control over the works of five districts, which include the Market Committees headed by the Selection Grade Secretaries. The nature of works and duties of the Deputy Director are therefore spread over five districts. Even if one of the district is his native district, that itself cannot be the ground to deny the option exercised by the first respondent seeking transfer to Warangal. It is also held by the Tribunal that as the first respondent had completed two years service, his case deserves consideration as per G.O.Ms.No. 169, dated 17.6.2009, whereas, the petitioner served at Narsampet for eight months only and his case does not fall within the purview of the said Government Order. The findings of the Tribunal, therefore, warrants no interference. The Writ Petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. ----------------------------------- JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH -------------------------------------------- - JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 10th November, 2009. Msnr.