IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8156 of 1999 Between: Md. Riyazuddin S/o. Ismail Sugar Cane Research Station, R/o. Vuyyuru, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Acharya N.G.Ranga Agrl. University Rep. by its Admn. Officer, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. 2 The Acharya N.G.Ranga Agrl. University Rep. by its Sugar Cane Research Officer, Vuyyuru Krishna District. .....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 to issue writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the entire action of the respondents in preparing final common seniority list for the educated casual labourers who possess SSC and intermediate vide Memo. No.PO/7789/Lab/98 dated:1.2.1999 by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unlawful contrary to law, in violation of Sec.9(a) of I.D.Act, contrary to the procedure, service rules, in violation of principles of natural justice, and also in violation of articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the post of Sub-Assistant/extension officer on par with his immediate junior by setting aside the serniority list dated 1.2.1999 and directing the respondents to follow 1:1 ratio of educated casual labourers who possess SSC/intermediate in the interest of justice and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent : MR.B.SIVA REDDY FOR R The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 8156 of 1999 ORDER: The action of the respondents in preparing a final common seniority list for the educated casual labourers, who possess SSC and Intermediate vide Memo 01.02.1999, is questioned in this writ petition as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Petitioner admits to have been working with the respondent, with effect from 11.12.1984, as a casual labourer and that he belong to the O.C. category. It is his case that, though he has been working under the second respondent for the past fifteen years, his case has not been considered for regularization. He would state that, in the year 1993, the respondents had evolved a policy as “Farm service regulations, 1982” and that the paid policy was amended from time to time. Under the said policy, vacancies of sub-assistants, among others, which are intended to be filled up by direct recruitment, should be filled only in the ratio of 1:1 between the casual labourers who satisfy the qualifications prescribed for the said post under the relevant service rules and fresh recruits and that casual labourers, possessing SSC and Intermediate qualification, were being considered for the post of sub-assistant in the ratio of 1:1. Petitioner would state that he was outstanding in his Intermediate, that on 12.08.1993 the respondent, as per the policy evolved, had prepared a list of educated casual labourers and, in the annexed list of casual labourers, he was shown and that candidates at serial Nos. 6 to 14 were all juniors to him. Petitioner would contend that, while preparing the list in the year 1993, the first respondent did not call for any comments or objection on the list prepared by them and, therefore, the entire action of the respondents was arbitrary and illegal and contrary to law. It is further stated that, having coming to know that the respondents had considered the case of casual labourers at serial No. 6 to 14 for the post of Sub-Assistant/Extension Officers, the petitioner had submitted his objections and that no action was initiated thereupon. Petitioner would contend that the respondent, without amending the regulations, and without issuing notice to all those concerned, had prepared a final common seniority list dated 01.02.1999 which was in gross violation of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Petitioner would contend that, in view of the final common seniority list dated 01.02.1999, some of the casual labnourers who possessed SSC qualification were shown in the seniority list and as a result his name was shown at serial No. 54. According to the petitioner, the respondents, without following the earlier procedure of filling the posts in the ratio of 1:1 for the educated casual labourers of SSC and Intermediate, had considered all SSC qualified candidates for the posts of Sub-Assistants and Extension officers resulting in a situation where he would not be considered for promotion/regularization in his entire service. Petitioner would contend that, as a result of the wrong preparation, several persons were promoted though they were juniors to him and that he was deprived of being considered for promotion in the year 1995-96 also. In their counter-affidavit, the respondents would state that, under the APAU Farm Service Regulations 1982, the qualifications prescribed, in the proceedings dated 08.11.1982, for appointment to the post of Sub-Assistant was that 20% of the vacancies was to be filled up by promotion and remaining vacancies by direct recruitment, that these 1982 regulations were amended vide proceedings dated 04.12.1984 and, after amendment, the qualifications prescribed for Sub-Assistants was that the method of recruitment should be by way of direct recruitment and the qualification prescribed was that the candidate must have passed two years Intermediate examination with any two of the subjects i.e., (1) physical Science; (2) Biological Sciences or Natural Sciences; (3) Agricultural Science; (4) Vocational course in Agriculture. It is further stated that, on persistent representations from the labour union and with an intention to provide more opportunities and avenues to the educated casual labour, the University had brought about the policy dated 16.01.1988 and had issued proceedings dated 15.03.1989 for filling up the posts of Sub-Assistants and, under the said policy, 50% of posts of Sub- Assistants were required to be filled by casual labour engaged prior to 08.11.1982 and possessing SSC or equivalent qualification and the remaining 50% was to be filled up with casual labourers with Intermediate in Science and also casual labourers with Intermediate in Arts if engaged prior to 18.05.1982. It is stated that, under the said regulations, vacancies of Sub-Assistants were to be filled up from among casual laboeurers in the ratio of 1:1 prior to 08.11.1982 and possessing SSC or equivalent certificate and casual labourers possessing Intermediate (science) and casual labourers with intermediate (Arts) who were engaged prior to 18.05.1982. Reference is made in the counter-affidavit to the subsequent amendments made to the Regulations for direct recruitment to the post of Sub- Assistants. It is further stated that the said memo was not in violation of Section 9-A of the I.D. Act, since it did not interfere with any service conditions of the petitioner as listed in the 4th Schedule to the I.D. Act, that the petitioner was engaged as a casual labour only from 11.12.1984, that he did not possess the qualifications of Intermediate (Science), that in order to have his case considered he should have joined prior to 08.11.1982 whereas he had joined only on 11.12.1984. It is stated that the Government had permitted the University to fill up the vacancies with those candidates who had put in five years of service as on 28.11.1993 following the seniority list in G.O.Ms. No. 231 dated 16.10.1998 and accordingly the respondent had prepared a seniority list and had published the same in memo dated 01.02.1999 wherein the petitioner’s seniority was shown at serial No. 54. The respondent would deny the allegation that the casual labourers at serial Nos. 6 to 14 in the said seniority list dated 12.08.1993 were juniors to the petitioner. They would contend that the seniority list prepared in the year 1993 was a list of casual labourers engaged prior to 08.11.1982 with SSC qualification and casual labour with Intermediate engaged prior to 18.05.1982 and casual labour with Intermediate qualification and that the officers were requested to display the list to enable objections to be made thereto and since no discrepancies were reported, the final list was communicated. While the appropriate forum to examine as to whether there has been a change in the conditions of service of a workman, in violation of Section 9-A of the I.D. Act, is the labour Court/Industrial Tribunal on a proper Industrial dispute being raised, it is contended by Sri P. Sridhar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that since facts are not in dispute, there is no justification in now relegating the petitioner to invoke the alternate remedy more so when the writ petition was admitted in the year 1999 and is pending on the file of this Court for the past nearly a decade. Learned Counsel would submit that, since the respondents have admitted that the regulations as detailed in the proceedings dated 16.01.1988 and 14.03.1989 has subsequently been modified in proceedings dated 27.04.1998, such a change could not have been effected without putting the petitioner on notice as required under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned Counsel would submit that, in accordance with the proceedings dated 16.01.1988 and 14.03.1989, since the petitioner possessed the qualification of Intermediate in Science and Arts his services ought to have been regularised. While it is no doubt true that the regulations, stipulated in proceedings dated 16.01.1988 and 14.03.1999, classifies the feeder categories, for appointment to the posts of Sub-Assistants, as Casual labourers with SSC for 50% of the posts and casual labour with Intermediate (Science and Arts) for the remaining 50%, in addition a cut of date is prescribed and it is only such casual labourers who possess SSC and were appointed prior to 08.11.1982, and casual labourers with Intermediate (Science and Arts) engaged prior to 18.05.1982, who are eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Sub-Assistants. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed only on 18.05.1984 and, even if the said regulation is held to be in force, and not the regulation which came into force consequent upon the amendment made later, the petitioner would nonetheless not be eligible to be considered for inclusion in the list of casual labourers with Intermediate qualifications as he was not appointed prior to 18.05.1982. Sri P. Sridhar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would state that the respondent corporation has, in fact, appointed several persons engaged after 1982 under the very same proceedings. His contention does not necessitate examination since none of the persons so promoted have been arrayed as respondents in the writ petition. Even assuming that any such appointments were made, such appointments would, if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that it is only the proceedings dated 16.01.1988 and 14.03.1989 which continue to remain in force, be contrary to the regulations rendering such appointment illegal. Merely because some others were appointed illegally, contrary to the applicable regulations, the petitioner cannot claim parity or to seek a direction from this Court that the illegality be perpetuated (Chandigarh Administration Vs. Jagjit Singh[1] ). Admittedly the petitioner does not fulfil the requirement of having been appointed prior to 18.05.1982. He cannot, therefore, place reliance on the proceedings dated 16.01.1988 and 14.03.1989 to contend that the subsequent revision is illegal for, even if the aforesaid proceedings were held to apply, he was nonetheless not entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Sub- Assistants. It is, therefore, wholly unnecessary to examine the contention as to whether Section 9-A of the I.D. Act applies in the facts and circumstances of the present case and whether the respondents have acted in violation of Section 9-A of the Act. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. _______________________________ Date: 16.04.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ESWAR} [1] AIR 1995 SC 705