IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27153 of 2006 Between: 1 K. Malla Reddy S/o Chinna Malla Reddy R/o Konarajupalli Village, Vontimitta Mandal, Cuddapah District, 2 R. Gopal Reddy S/o Nagi Reddy, r/o D. No. 1/231-2D, Chinnachowk, Cuddapah 3 S. Subbarami Reddy S/o Singana Sivarami Reddy 1/259-6 Srinagar, Chinnachowk, Cuddapah. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Judge, kadapa. 2 The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad repby its Registrar (Vigilance), .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent in D.O. Lr. No. 1706/2006-VIGILAMCE CELL, dated 22-11- 2006 in directing the 1st respondent to terminate our Services, as arbitrary, without jurisdiction, discriminatory, action of the 1st respondent in not paying our salaries attached to the posts and the consequential order of the 1st respondent dated 18-12-2006 made in Dis NO. 9338/2006, No. 9339/2006 and No. 9337/2006 respectively terminating our services as unjust, non-consideration of the relevant material available on record, vioaltive of principlesof natural justice, violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set a side the same and pass such otherorder or orders as are deemed fit and properinthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.V.R.RUDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: G.VIDYASAGAR (SC FOR APHC) The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No. 27153 of 2006 Oral Order: (Per: GR, J) The petitioners three in number challenge identical orders passed by the 1st respondent all dated 18-12-2006 declaring that the appointments of the petitioners are in violation of the rules; the concept of equality in public service; that their services are terminated with immediate effect. From the record of the 1st respondent’s unit, the District Court, Kadapa, as available from the record placed by the learned counsel for the High Court, it would appear that an ‘office note’ was put up for the consideration of the 1st respondent some time in May, 2005 to the effect that the petitioners had applied for appointment to any vacancy in the Judicial Department; that a vacancy in the post of Gardener, Masalchi and Electrician are vacant; that it is not necessary to intimate these vacancies to the employment exchange; that it is essential to fill up the posts; and that the case of the petitioners could be considered in the circumstances. Thereupon, the 1st respondent by orders dated 09-05-2005, 07-05-2005 and 07-05-2005 (for the three petitioners) issued order of appointment to the petitioners as Gardner, Masalchi and Electrician, respectively. When information of the wholly irregular appointments made by the then incumbent of the office of the 1st respondent was brought to the notice of the High Court, the High Court on a consideration of the matter directed the 1st respondent to take necessary action. The 1st respondent thereupon issued a show cause notice dated 23-11-2006 to the petitioners intimating that their appointment is in violation of the rules; the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Service and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994, and the circular of the High Court dated 26-07-2004 (directing the District Judicial Units not to resort to contingent or other employment, unless there are sanctioned posts) and called upon the petitioners to show cause why their services be not terminated immediately. The petitioners submitted their explanations and the impugned order was passed. On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that they were appointed pursuant to the formal orders passed by the competent authority viz., the 1st respondent and they had also put in continuous service since the date of appointment till the date of termination, without payment of any salary whatsoever. The order of termination visits them with civil consequences and deprivation of their livelihood, is also the defense. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. To the extent relevant and material for the purposes of this writ petition, the counter states that the District Treasury Officer, Kadapa raised objections to the pay bills pertaining to the petitioners on the ground that their appointments were not legal being in violation of the provisions of the Act 2 of 1994. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts had issued directives in a memo dated 08-08-2005 not to entertain pay bills of persons appointed contrary to the provisions of Act 2 of 1994. In the circumstances, the pay and allowances of the petitioners neither could be drawn nor paid to them. With regard to the substantive contents of the impugned order, the counter states that the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 which came into effect from 15-01-1994 are equally applicable to the staff and the ministerial services in the District Judicial Unit in view of the circular of the High Court dated 26-07- 2004. Therefore, whenever a vacancy against a sanctioned post is available, the competent authority must issue a notification calling for applications from eligible candidates and after obtaining due approval of the High Court selections should be finalized and only thereafter appointment orders could be issued. In the case on hand, without a notification and even intimation to or approval of the High Court, the petitioners were appointed without following any due process of law and to the deprivation of equal opportunity in public employment of other persons desirous of such employment. The appointment of the petitioners is wholly illegal and unconstitutional being in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri C.V. Rudra Prasad except strenuously contending that the petitioners would be in a sorry economic plight consequent on the impugned orders of termination does not place before this Court any legal principle to impeach the impugned order of termination. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the initial orders of the 1st respondent issuing appointments to the petitioners as Gardener, Masalchi and Electrician are wholly perverse and contrary to the constitutional injunction of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, apart from being in transgression of the statutory rules as also in violation of the provisions of the Act 2 of 1994 the appointments are non est and for these reasons the orders of termination of the petitioners after following the due process of affording an opportunity, suffers from no infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated: 26-06-2009 Pvks