IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 13538 of 2004 Between: 1 P. Sudhkar Rao S/o Radhunandha Rao LUxettipet, Adilabad District 2 Hasan Mohiuddin S/o Ghouse Mohiuddin, Jannaram, Adilabad District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Governmetn of A.P., rep by Hyderabad 2 State of A.P., rep by Secretary Food and Agriculture 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 order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Certioreri calling for the records relating to order of the Hon'ble A.P., Administrative Tribunal dated 11-2-2004 in O.a. No. 2590 of 1999 and quasht he same and further declare Memo No. Esst/VII (1)/357/98 dated 28-2-99 as illegal, bad arbitrery and violative of Article 14 16 of the Constitution of India and ruther direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre of Agricultureal Officers with effect from 1982 i.e. the date of appointment of other candidates with all consequential benefits such as arrears of salary, pay fixation etc., Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P. No.13538 of 2004 ORDER: (per GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 11.2.2004 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 2590 of 1999, whereunder and whereby the claim of the petitioners for notional appointment as Agricultural Officers with effect from 1982, was dismissed upholding the Memo dated 28.2.1999 of the first respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Director of Agriculture notified 381 vacancies of Agricultural Officers during the year 1978-1981 to the Employment Exchage. The names of the petitioners among others were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the said posts. The petitioners appeared for interview on 19.5.1980 and they were selected by the Selection Committee and their names were included in the list of selected candidates. In the select list, there were 454 candidates. Even though there were vacancies, the authorities had appointed only few candidates and a ban was imposed on all further appointments on 5.3.1982. About 321 candidates were appointed before 5.3.1982 on various spells. Immediately, they made a representation to the Government to consider their case and issue appointment orders and that the ban should not come in their way. Considering the representation and after obtaining information from the Director of Agriculture, the Government issued Memo No.19503/Agr.V (1)/82-83 dated 17.9.1982 directing the candidates who have already been selected by the Director of Agriculture for the post of Agricultural Officer prior to 5.3.1982 and kept in the waiting list be given orders for temporary appointment in relaxation of ban orders issued by the Government. However, again ban was imposed on 19.5.1983 and informed that the petitioners including several others could not be appointed. The first petitioner along with others filed W.P.Nos.7520 and 8677 of 1983 before this Court and the same were allowed by order dated 30.12.1983 directing the respondents to act upon and give effect to the select list prepared by the Director of Agriculture in May, 1980. The second petitioner filed W.P.No.8629 of 1983 and the same was disposed of by order dated 1.7.1985, following the above judgment dated 30.12.1983. Those judgments were challenged by the respondents before a Division Bench of this court and in the light of the judgment in P.Samba Murthy Vs. Union of India ,[1] the Division Bench held that the above writ petitions were not maintainable and the petitioners had to approach the Tribunal. Accordingly, the petitioners filed RP.No.799 of 1987 and the same was allowed vide its order dated 16.9.1987 directing the respondents to consider their case for appointment as Agricultural Officers in available and future vacancies. When the said judgment was not implemented, they filed W.P.No.7542 of 1989 and the same was allowed on 3.7.1989 directing the respondents to implement the orders of the Tribunal within eight weeks. Pursuant to the said direction, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1887 dated 7.9.1990 appointing them as Agricultural Officers in Zone-V. However, the authorities have not taken any steps for notional appointment of the petitioners with effect from 1982 as they are eligible to be appointed at that time. They made a representation to the first respondent to give notional seniority from 1982 with all consequential benefits and the same was rejected vide Memo No. Estt. VII (i) 357/98 dated 28.2.1999 on the ground that their seniority will be fixed from the date of appointment and there is no provision in the rules for retrospective appointment. Aggrieved by the said Memo, the petitioners filed O.A.No.2590 of 1999 and the same was dismissed on 11.02.2004. Against that dismissal order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though the petitioners were selected in the year 1982, they were not appointed as Agricultural Officers, but similarly situated persons like the petitioners were appointed. On 5.3.1982, the authorities imposed a ban on appointments and the ban was relaxed on 17.9.1982 and some more similarly situated persons were appointed ignoring the petitioners. The learned counsel contended that even though the petitioners were selected in the year 1982 for the post of Agricultural Officer, they were denied appointments. As such, the petitioners approached this Court and the Tribunal seeking direction to the respondents for their appointment as Agricultural Officers and they have succeeded in getting the favourable orders, but the authorities did not comply with those orders and finally in pursuance of the orders dated 3.7.1987, in W.P.No.7542 of 1989 the Government issued orders dated 7.9.1990 appointing the petitioners as Agricultural Officers. As such, the delay in appointing the petitioners is entirely attributable on the respondents and the petitioners are entitled for notional appointment with effect from 1982. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I submitted that since the petitioners were appointed in the year 1990, their seniority has to be determined by the date of their first appointment as per the provisions of general Rule 33(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. 5. We have considered the rival contentions. A perusal of the record would show that this Court in W.P. Nos. 7520 and 8629 of 1983 directed the authorities to consider the appointment of the petitioners as Agricultural Officers, but on appeal filed by the respondents, a Division Bench of this court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable and directed the petitioners to approach the Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing R.P.No.799 of 1987 and the same was allowed directing the authorities to consider the appointment of the petitioners as Agricultural Officers. As the authorities did not comply with the direction of the Tribunal, the petitioners filed W.P.No.7542 of 1989 and it was allowed on 3.7.1989 and in pursuance of the direction of this court in the W.P. the petitioners were appointed through orders dated 7.9.1990. Though the petitioners were selected in the year 1982, they were not appointed immediately and they were appointed in the year 1990 only after direction of this court in W.P.No.7542 of 1989. Therefore, the delay has to be attributed on the part of the authorities for not issuing the appointment orders. When similarly situated persons like the petitioners were appointed in the year 1982, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their appointment with effect from 1982. While dealing in a similar matter, the Apex Court in Balwant Singh Narwal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others[2] held as under: “There is no dispute about these general principles. But the question here is in regard to seniority of Respondents 4 to 16 selected on 1-10-1993 against certain vacancies of 1992-1993 who were not appointed due to litigation, and those who were selected against subsequent vacancies. All others from the same merit list declared on 1.10.1993 were appointed on 2.6.1994. Considering a similar situation, this Court, in Surendra Narain Singh v. State of Bihar, held that candidates who were selected against earlier vacancies but who could not be appointed along with others of the same batch due to certain technical difficulties, when appointed subsequently, will have to be placed above those who were appointed against subsequent vacancies.” 6. In view of the legal position and in the circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to give notional appointment as Agricultural Officers with effect from 1982 with all consequential benefits. 7. Hence, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the Memo dated 28.2.1999 of the first respondent and the order, dated 11.2.2004 passed by the Tribunal. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ​ _____________ SANJAY KUMAR,J 5th day of March,2009. Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} [1] 1987 (4) SLR 3 , [2] (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 728