THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos. 21559 & 22455 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are filed, challenging the proceedings dated 16-08-2010, issued by the Managing Director of the A.P. Education & Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Hyderabad. The petitioners joined the service of the A.P. Scheduled Castes Co-operative Finance Corporation Limited (for short ‘the SC Corporation’), as Assistant Executive Engineers. They have been promoted as Deputy Executive Engineers, and thereafter, as Executive Engineers, in that Corporation. They were posted at the branches at Kurnool and Elur, respectively. The SC Corporation had established three circle offices headed by Superintending Engineers (SEs) at three different places, viz., Guntur, Kadapa and Hyderabad, to cater to the needs of the three regions. Since the regular incumbents in the office of the SEs were not posted, petitioner in W.P.No.21559 of 2010 was placed In-charge of the post of S.E for Kadapa Circle, and petitioner in W.P.No.22455 of 2010 was placed In-charge of the office of the SE for Guntur Circle. Recently, reorganization of the SC Corporation took place. The A.P. Education & Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) came into existence, and the activities of the SC Corporation were made over to it, with staff and establishment. The impugned order was passed, posting the Executive Engineers of the concerned district units of Guntur and Kadapa, as In- charge, for the posts of SEs for the respective circles and thereby, replacing the petitioners. They feel aggrieved on account of this. Petitioners contend that the impugned order is passed with an ulterior motive and with the objective of replacing them with the incumbents, of the choice, of the Corporation. It is stated that the orders were passed on the basis of a letter addressed by the Minster for School Education Department of the Government of A.P. In W.P.No.21559 of 2010, the petitioner contends that, he is senior to the 2nd respondent therein. On behalf of the Corporation, counter-affidavits are filed. According to them, the petitioners do not have any vested right to continue as In-charges of the offices of the SE. It is stated that the impugned order was passed due to administrative exigencies. Another contention advanced by the Corporation is that the petitioners were operating the offices of the SE from different places, and that in turn was giving rise to several problems and complications. According to them, keeping the Executive Engineers of the same place as In- charge of the post of SE would add to the efficiency in the administration. The 2nd respondent in each of the writ petitions, who are posted in the place of the petitioners, have also filed counter- affidavits, on similar lines. Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are functioning as In-charge SEs for the past more than two years, and hardly there were any complaints from any circle. He contends that the impugned order was passed only with a view to favour the persons, who are posted in the place of the petitioners. Learned Advocate-General appeared for the Corporation. He submits that the Corporation has taken a policy decision to keep the Executive Engineers of the respective districts, where the circle offices are situated, as In-charges of the post of SE. He contends that the petitioners cannot claim any right to be continued as SEs on In-charge basis. Adverting to the allegation of the petitioners that the impugned order was passed at the instance of the Minister for School Education, he contends that the Corporation is under direct control of the Minister, and it is competent for him to issue instructions from time to time, for its efficient functioning. He draws the attention of the Court to the proceedings, through which the petitioners were posted as In-charge SEs, and makes a reference to the endorsement of the Minister for Social Welfare, before the reorganization took place. The petitioners are functioning as In-charge SEs for Guntur and Kadapa circles. These arrangements were in existence, even before the present Corporation came into existence. It is true that this Court would discourage the replacement of one in-charge arrangement with another incharge arrangement. Though an incumbent does not have any right to insist that he shall be continued as an in-charge of another post, fairness demands that order of seniority is followed, even for making in-charge arrangements, and an arrangement of that nature is not replaced with another of similar nature. However, there cannot be any hard and fast rule, in this regard. Much would depend upon the relevant factors and the perception of the concerned administration. The replacement of the petitioners with other incumbents as in-charge SEs is not on account of any allegations, or finding as to their functioning. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the Executive Engineers at Kurnool and Elur, respectively, and they were functioning as In-charge SEs of the circle offices at Kadapa and Guntur, respectively. This would naturally result in dislocation of the work, in either of the offices, being handled by the petitioners, and at times, in both of them. The Corporation realized this, and has chosen to place the Executive Engineers of Kadapa and Guntur, circles respectively, as In-charges of the post of SEs of the circles. When the Corporation has taken a policy decision even to make in-charge arrangements, in a particular method, the petitioners cannot object to it, nor this Court would be inclined to interfere, unless the policy itself is found to be patently illegal and contrary to established principles of law. The argument advanced by the petitioners, that seniority is not being followed in making the in-charge arrangements; is equally unacceptable. Making of in-charge arrangements is always a matter of convenience. Though it is desirable to place a senior as in-charge of the next superior post, it cannot be treated as a mandatory requirement. At any rate, the plea is relevant only in respect of one of them. Another contention urged by the petitioners is that the impugned order was passed on the basis of the written instructions issued by the Minister of School Education. If the Minister has nothing to do with the administration of the Corporation, and has chosen to interfere with its affairs, a serious view deserves to be taken. The structure of the Corporation is such that the Minister for School Education is assigned a prominent role in it. Therefore, the letter addressed by him cannot be treated as an instance of interference in the administration of the Corporation. It is important to note that the orders through which, the petitioners were placed as In-charge of the offices of the SEs; were passed on the basis of a note, or observation made by the Minister of Social Welfare, who figured prominently in the administration of the SC Corporation. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt. 19-11-2010. KO