THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 29796 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) The unsuccessful applicant in O.A.No. 2831 of 2008 has presented this writ petition against the order dt. 11.4.2011 of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) rejecting the O.A. The petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable on 11.4.1983. He tendered his resignation, which was accepted on 3.10.1993. In the meanwhile the petitioner claims, he had put in 11 ½ years of service. The Tribunal in the order impugned records that in 1994 (after acceptance of his resignation), the writ petitioner contested and was elected as village Sarpanch during the Grampanchayat elections and subsequently joined another political party and worked as a Sarpanch till 14.8.2010 and thereafter as a Village Committee President of the political party upto May, 2003. After his assignation with political office ended, the petitioner appears to have made a representation for re-entry into service. On his representation, the State Government vide orders in G.O.Rt. No. 579 dt. 6.5.2003 accorded sanction under the proviso III of General Rule 30(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, for withdrawal of the petitioner’s resignation, subject to the condition that his reappointment as Police Constable be treated as first appointment forfeiting the previous service rendered by him as Police Constable, in terms of General Rule 30 (d). Rule 30 (d) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules enjoins that the reappointment of a person, who has resigned from Government service and who is reappointed to any service, shall be treated in the same way as a first appointment to such service by direct recruitment and all rules governing such appointment shall apply, and on such reappointment, shall not be entitled to count any portion of his previous service for any benefit or concession admissible under any rule or order. In terms of the Rule 30 (d) the State issued the order in G.O.Rt.No. 579 reappointing the petitioner into service but treating it as a fresh appointment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2831 of 2008 claiming the benefit of past service and attendant benefits for the purpose of seniority and continuity of service for terminal benefits. The application was rejected by the Tribunal and the petitioner filed the present writ petition reiterating the self-same contentions as were urged before and negatived by the Tribunal. The petitioner contends that another individual by name B.Narsing Rao who was the Inspector of Police, Cyberabad had resigned and was subsequently permitted to re-enter service with benefit of past service. In the reply affidavit in the O.A. the petitioner also refers another instance of Dr.K.Narayana Reddy, a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Animal Husbandry Department who was also reappointed into service; his absence was treated as leave with protection of past service. The petitioner asserts that he was discriminated against and that power of relaxation under Rule 30 of the A.P. State Subordinate Service Rules should have been exercised by the Government to grant him the benefit of his past service. This Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Article 310 of the Constitution enjoins inter alia that holders of civil posts under the State do so during the pleasure of the Governor. There is however no provision of law nor a principle, which enjoins that the Government should function during the pleasure of civil servants. While the petitioner had asserted in the O.A. that he had resigned on account of the trauma occasioned by the sad demise of his son, the facts reveal that soon after his resignation in 1993, the petitioner proceeded to take political office and pursued the same till 2003 at one level or the other and after his tryst with active politics ended, chose a prodigal return to public employment. These circumstances do not warrant any relaxation of rules as any such relaxation granted would in the context convert the discipline of public service into a private whim. There are no merits in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _____________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, 09.11.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 29796 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Dt. 09.11.2011.