IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NOs : 3772 AND 4034 OF 2008 W.P.NO.3772 OF 2008 Between: 1.P. Hanumanth Rao, S/o. Tirupataiah, Working in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, G.H.M.C. Office, Tankbund, Hyderabad. 2.Syed Sayeeduddin, S/o. Syed Zainulabeddin, Working in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, G.H.M.C. Office, Tankbund, Hyderabad. 3.M. Ravi Kumar, S/o. Rama Rao, Working in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, G.H.M.C. Office, Tankbund, Hyderabad. 4.Syed Wasi Ahmed, s/o. Syed Nazeer Ahmed, Working in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, G.H.M.C. Office, Tankbund, Hyderabad. 5.S. Sreeramulu, S/o. Mallaiah, Working in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, G.H.M.C. Office, Tankbund, Hyderabad. 6.K. Somashankara Rao, s/o. Suryarao, Working in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, G.H.M.C. Office, Tankbund, Hyderabad. 7.K. Nanal Rao, S/o. Pitchaiah, Working in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, G.H.M.C. Office, Tankbund, Hyderabad. ....PETITIONER (S) AND 1.The Commissioner and Special officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Band, Hyderabad. 2.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, MA & UD Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, call for the impugned judgment in OA No. 5091/2007 dt.8-2-2008 of the Administrative Tribunal and set-aside the same as illegal, invalid, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently declare the petitioners are entitled to be continued in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation as per the posting orders with all benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.V.L.MURHTY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE, STANDING COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. W. P. NO : 4034 of 2008 Between: 1. R.V. Seshu S/o R.K. Naidu 2. V. Gangaiah S/o Venkatappa 3. K. Kuppa naik S/o Muttu Naik 4. B. Bhadru S/o Hari Singh 5. K. Krishna S/o K. Narasimha Murthy 6. K. Guru Prasad S/o K. Thimmaiah 7. B. Krishna rao S/o Narasaiah 8. Ch. Srinivas S/o Papaiah Sastry 9. M. Bhavani Shiva Prasad S/o M. Bhayanna (All are working in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, GHMC. Office, Tankband, Hyderabad. .....PETITIONER(S) AND 1.The Commissioner and Special officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tankband, Hyderabad. 2.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, MA & UD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, call for the impugned judgment in O.A. No. 4204/2007 dated 8-2-2008 of the Administrative tribunal and set-a side the same as illegal, invalid, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently declare the petitioners are entitled to be continue in the Grater Hyderabad municipal Corporation as per the posting orders with all benefits and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.V.L.MURHTY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU} Both the writ petitions are filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the common order, dated 08-02-2008, in O.A.Nos.4204 and 5091 of 2007 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for brevity “the Tribunal”). 2. Petitioners in both the writ petitions are the applicants and the respondents are the respondents in the O.A., before the Tribunal. 3. The writ petitioners are the Engineers working in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, G.H.M.C. Office, Tankbund, Hyderabad. Admittedly, their parent department is A.P. Panchayat Raj Engineering Service and Rural Irrigation Corporation. They were deputed to work in G.H.M.C, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the 1st respondent vide impugned proceedings No.263/AC (A) OP1/GHMC/2007-1732, dated 24-07-007, cancelled the deputation of the petitioners by repatriating them to their parent department on the ground that they are non-locals. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed O.A., before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal after considering the material on record held that the employer has inherent power and right to cancel the deputation at any time and the deputationists have no right to assail the same and accordingly, dismissed the O.As. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petitions have been filed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions contended that since the Presidential Order has no application to the employees of the G.H.M.C., Hyderabad, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be quashed. 6. Now, the question is whether the deputation can be cancelled at any time and whether the writ petitioners have vested right? 7. The same question had fallen for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.3113 of 2008. This Court after referring to various judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court, vide order, dated 19-02-2008, allowed the writ petition setting aside the interim order of the Tribunal and consequently dismissed the O.A. 8. In RATTILAL B.SONI V STATE OF GUJARAT [1], which was reiterated in STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS V INDER SINGH AND OTHERS [2], it was held that the deputationists have no right to remain in the transferee department. The order impugned in the Tribunal, would go to show that because the petitioners and some others are non-locals, their deputation was cancelled. We have already held in W.P.No.3113 of 2008 that the Presidential Order applies only to the direct recruits, but not to transfers on deputation. Since, no mala fides are attributed against the person who cancelled the deputation, the petitioners have no right to challenge the order of cancellation of deputation. Therefore, following the order of this Court in W.P.No.3113 of 2008, dated 19-02-2008, both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------- JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ------------------------------ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU DATED: 28-02-2008 Hsd To 1.The Commissioner and Special officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Band, Hyderabad. 2.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, MA & UD Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3. 2 CCs to G.P. for Municipal Admn., and Urban Dev. 4. 2 CD copies. [1] AIR 1990 SC 1132 [2] (1997) 8 SCC 372