IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 3645 of 2008 Between: K.Nagi Reddy S/o.Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy, Siddar Medcial College,Vijayawada Dist Krishna Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of A.P, Rep.by its Secretary, HM&FW Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyd 2 The Director General Drugs &Copyright, Drugs Control Administration,Vengalrao Nagar Hyd 3 The Government of A.P, Rep.by its Secretary Finance(SMPC) Department, Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad 4 G.V.Vijayam S/o.Late P.Y.Samuel, O/o. The Director General Drugs & Copyright, Drugs Control Administration,Vengalrao Nagar,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 writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and call for the records relating to and connected with orders of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad dt.21-01-2008 rendered in O.A.No.4559 of 2007 and quash or set aside the same with all consequential benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NAVEEN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order, dated 21.01.2008 passed in O.A. No. 4559 of 2007 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and to quash the same and to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner, this writ petition is filed. The petitioner filed the above OA assailing GO Ms. No. 187 Finance (SMPC) Department dated 1.7.2006 and to set aside the same to the extent of paragraph No. 4 of the said G.O., and to direct the respondents to consider and promote the petitioner to the post of Junior Scientific Officer in terms of Rules issued in GO Ms. No. 339 HM & FW Department dated 28.8.1996. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Analyst in the Office of the fourth respondent herein and has put in 23 years of service and is eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Scientific Officer in terms of GO Ms. No. 339 Dated 28.8.1996. While so, under GO Ms. No. 187 dated 1.7.2006, one post of Junior Scientific Officer, each at Hyderabad and Vijayawada, was sanctioned stipulating that the said posts shall be filled by deputation or redeployment, contrary to the Service Rules and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Case of the respondents is that Junior Analysts working in Drug Control Administration are eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Scientific Officer and the request of the fourth respondent herein to fill up the posts sanctioned in GO Ms. No. 187 dated 1.7.2006 from Junior Analysts was rejected by the Surplus Manpower Cell of Finance Department and instructed to fill the posts by deputation or redeployment in terms of the GO Ms.No. 187 dated 1.7.2006. It is also their case that the post of Junior Scientific Officer shall be filled by Junior Analysts or by direct recruitment in the ratio of 1:1. The Tribunal on consideration of the material available on record observed that the direction to fill the post of Senor Scientific Officer up by way of deputation or redeployment is contrary to the Service Rules issued in A.P. Drugs Control Administration Service, issued in GO Ms. No. 339 dated 28.8.1996 and, accordingly, paragraph No.4 of GO Ms. No. 187 dated 1.7.2007 was held to be bad and cannot be enforced and, consequently, the appointment of the petitioner herein was held to be bad in law, inasmuch as he was appointed by way of redeployment as Junior Scientific Officer in pursuance of GO Ms. No.187 dated 1.7.2006. Consequently, it allowed the OA directing the respondents to fill up the post of Junior Scientific Officer in accordance with the A.P. Drugs Control Administration Service Rules issued in GO Ms. No. 339 dated 28.8.1996. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. Admittedly, two posts of Junior Scientific Officer were created under GO Ms. No. 187 dated 1.7.2006 one each at Hyderabad and Vijayawada, and they are governed by the A.P. Drug Control Administration Service Rules. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the posts sanctioned were ex-cadre post, was negatived by the Tribunal, inasmuch as such a post is not defined either in the A.P. Drug Control Administration Service Rules or the A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules and, therefore, the posts are on regular basis and are covered by the A.P. Drug Control Administration Service Rules. The Tribunal also rightly negatived the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that redeployment resorted to under GO Ms. No. 187 dated 1.7.2006 is contrary to the Special Rules applicable to the post. The Tribunal, in paragraph No.19 of the impugned order, has exhaustively dealt with this issue and has rightly held that deputation is not contemplated under Special Rules to the post of Junior Scientific Officer. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the O.A. as stated supra. It has to be further observed that there is no material placed before this Court to the effect that the petitioner is, in any manner a surplus staff of the Siddhartha Medical College, Vijayawada, as maintained by the Surplus Man Power Cell. In the absence of any such material, we are not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, being a surplus staff, he should be considered for the post of Junior Scientific Officer by virtue of the paragraph No.4 of GO Ms. No. 187 Finance (SMPC) Department dated 1.7.2006. The Tribunal after elaborate analysis of the issue, in our considered view, has rightly dismissed the O.A. Having gone through the impugned order and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any illegality in the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J. March 5, 2008 MAS.