IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT APPEAL NO : 164 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22/01/2008 in WP NO : 796 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: P. Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o. Prasada Rao, (Supervisory Cadre) Railway Comml. Section Traffic Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam Rep by its Chairman 2 The Manager (OP), Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.G.V.SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT APPEAL NO : 164 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by an order, dated 22.01.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.796 of 2008. The appellant herein is the writ petitioner. He filed the above writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondents in issuing employment NoticeNo.7/2007, dated 7.12.2007 notifying the post of Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer to be filled up on deputation and the terms of the memorandum issued by the Government of India in proceedings No.A-29018/5/99-P.E.I., dated 6.2.2004 as highly illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to set aside the condition of the law by the respondents for the post of Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer and also method of recruitment on deputation. It is the main grievance of the petitioner-appellant that as per the report of the Pay Revision Committee for Port and Dock Officers, the post of Chief Vigilance Officer alone can be filled on deputation basis and other officers and staff are to be filled up by drawing persons who are working in other departments of the very Port Trust and that recruitment of Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer cannot be by way of deputation from outside officers. The learned Single Judge having observed that as per the report of the Pay Revision Committee, there is no positive direction which obligates the Port Trust to fill up the vacancies other than the Chief Vigilance Officer only by considering the candidates from other Departments of the very Port Trust and the report merely says that the post of Chief Vigilance Officer will be filled up on deputation basis and other officers and staff under him, as far as possible, would be drawn from other departments and the said clause will not come in the way of the Port Trust in considering the eligible candidates working in Central Government, State Government and Semi Government etc., dismissed the writ petition at the stage of admission. Having aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner preferred the present appeal. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the order impugned. The appellant is supervisory cadre employee working as Senior Assistant in Railway Commercial Section, Traffic Department of Visakhapatnam Port Trust. It is the case of the appellant that the post of Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer has been classified as class I post and therefore, the same shall be filled up only through method of direct recruitment that too by conducting separate written examination and interview in which the departmental candidates possessing the Degree or equivalent qualification will have to be considered for promotion, but contrary to the directions issued by the Government, the respondents have issued the notification for filling up the said post on deputation basis. In this respect, it is relevant to note the Regulations of Visakhapatnam Port Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion). Regulation No.18-Deputation : Any employee may be permitted to serve on deputation or on foreign service under the control of the Central Government or a State Government, any local authority, statutory undertaking or a Government company as defined in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or institutions are receiving grants from Government on such terms as may be agreed upon by the Board. At the same time, Regulation 17 dealing with the filling up of vacancies adhoc, reads as under: “(i)When no suitable employee is available for appointment, by promotion/direct recruitment, the appointing authority may fill such vacancy for such time as may be necessary by the deputation of an officer-employee under any other Port authority, the Central Government, a State Government or any local authority, statutory undertaking or any Government Company as defined in the Company’s Act 1956 (1 to 1956), or institutions receiving grants from Government. (ii)the appointing authority may also make other temporary arrangements as it may deem necessary to fill any post for a period not exceeding six months” At this juncture, it is also relevant to note the contents in the impugned employment notice: “Applications are invited from the eligible officers from the major ports/Central Government/State Government/Semi Government/Public Sector undertakings or autonomous Bodies holding analogous posts or officers in the pay scale of Rs.10750- 16750 with four years of regular service in the grade. In case no such eligible candidates are available, officers of a combined regular service of 9 years in the Pay Scale of Rs.10750-16750 and Rs.9100-15100 will be considered.” In the light of the above provisions, it can easily be inferred that the notification in question has been issued in consonance with the Regulations and apart from that, the regulation 17 itself empowers the authorities to notify the post in question under the circumstances mentioned therein. In this background of the matter and in the facts and circumstances of the case, We have no hesitation to hold that the order of the learned single Judge, needs no interference by this Court. Hence, this writ appeal is devoid of merits and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana Date: 11th April, 2008 Nn/Gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT APPEAL NO : 164 of 2008 (Division Bench Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 11.4.2008