IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 875 of 2009 Between: B. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. Buchi Reddy Rajendranagar Cirlce, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P., rep. by its Special Cheif Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad. 3 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner & Special Officer. 4 The Deputy Commissioner, L.B.Nagar Circle, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 5 The Deputy Commissioner, RAjendranagar Circle, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 6 B. Sambaiah S/o. Saraiah L.B.Nagar Circle, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. (Respondent No.6 is profarma Respondent) .....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 a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the Circular No.9543/MC/2007-12, dt. 2.7.2007, issued by the 1st respondent, including G.O.Rt.No.842, Municipal Admn. & Urban Development Department, dt. 3.7.07, issued by the 2nd respondent, and consequential procgs.No.SPF/CS1/2007-1 dt. 8.7.07 issued by the 3rd respondent and further consequential Procgs.No.3702/AC[A]/OP8/GHMC/2007 dt. 12.7.07, issued by the 4th respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional violating Article 14, 16, 21 and 371-D of the Constitution of India apart from ultra vires to the Presidential Order and st aside the same including order of the Hon'ble Tribunal dt. 8.2.2008 in O.A.No.4150/2007 and also declare that the G.O.Ms.No.610, GAD, dt.31.12.85 is not in force and it can not be implemented after 31.3.86 and further declare that the Presidential Order or the consequential orders, including G.O.Ms.No.610, GAD, dt. 30.12.85 are not applicable for deputation posts, much less, other than the allotments made in pursuance of the Presidential Order and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P. No.875 of 2009 ORDER: (per GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 8.2.2008 passed in O.A.No.4150 of 2007 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short’ the Tribunal’) whereunder the said O.A. was dismissed upholding the orders of repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department. 2. The order dated 2-7-2007 was issued by the Government to implement the Presidential Order for repatriation of non-locals to their respective local cadres and G.O.Rt.No.842, dated 3.7.2007 was issued with regard to implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610 withdrawing the services of one B.Veera Pratap, Deputy Executive Engineer (Zone-V) and one Shaik Ahmed Basha, Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer (Zone-III) from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and accordingly the Government cancelled their deputation withdrawing the services of above two persons from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and directing them to report before Engineer-in-Chief (PH) Hyderabad for their further posting. 3. The second applicant in O.A.No.4150 of 2007 has filed this writ petition. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Work Inspector in Warangal District in the year 1992 and later he was promoted as Municipal Assistant Engineer in the year 1998 in Zone-V and thereafter he was posted on deputation as Municipal Assistant Engineer in Rajendranagar Municipality in Ranga Reddy District in the year 2003. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.11, M.A. & U.D. Department dated 04.01.2006 transferring him to Yellandu Municipality. Subsequently, the Government issued a Memo dated 04.04.2006 retaining the petitioner to continue at Rajendranagar Municipality. Accordingly, the second respondent issued proceedings dated 01.05.2006 to continue the petitioner at Rajendranagar Municipality and he has been continuing at Rajendranagar Municipality which was subsequently merged with the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and renamed as the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. While things stood thus, the second respondent issued proceedings dated 08.07.2007 without obtaining any orders from the Government and followed the general instructions issued by the Government vide Memo dated 02.07.2007. The deputations are not covered either by the Presidential Order or the GO.Ms.No.610. The authorities without examining all these legal aspects, mechanically issued the orders disturbing the existing employees and creating artificial problems. 5. Respondents 1, 2 and 5 filed separate counters before the Tribunal opposing the O.A. and supporting the cancellation of deputation orders. It was averred that the petitioner-applicant, being a deputationist, has no right to continue in the borrowing department particularly when the borrowing department does not want his services. It is further contended that the Government issued Circular Memo No.9543/MC/2007-12 dated 2.7.2007 directing to cancel all the deputations to the local cadre posts from other local cadres, as it is affecting the employment and promotional opportunity of the local candidates and it is against the spirit of the Presidential Order. Accordingly, G.O.Rt.No.842, MA & UD Department, dated 3.7.2007 was issued. It is not correct to say that the Presidential Order is not applicable to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The petitioner- applicant does not belong to Zone-VI where the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is situated. Therefore, the petitioner-applicant has no right to continue on deputation in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. 6. This matter along with other similar matters was referred to a full bench of the Tribunal and the following points arose for consideration before it: (i) Whether the A.P. Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 is applicable to Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation? (ii) Whether G.O.Ms.No.610, GAD, dated 30.12.1985 is not valid under law? (iii) Whether various impugned orders in the above said O.As canceling the deputation of the applicants and repatriating to their parent departments are bad under law? (iv) To what relief? 7. The Tribunal while discussing point No.1, observed that the primary question was the validity of the impugned orders under which the deputation of the applicant to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation was cancelled and for answering the said question, it was not absolutely necessary to decide whether the Presidential Order was applicable to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation or not, and was not inclined to answer point No.1. As regards point No.2, the Tribunal after discussing elaborately and extracting Article 371-D and G.O.Ms.No.610, GAD, dated 30.12.1985, observed that there is no necessity to consider the validity of G.O.Ms.No.610 in the O.A. and further observed that in fact, there are other O.As where the validity of G.O.Ms.No.610 is challenged and the matter is pending before the Full Bench of the Tribunal. So, it is not necessary to decide the said issue in this O.A. in order to adjudicate the validity of the impugned orders. As regards point No.3, the Tribunal, by following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ratilal B.Soni and others v. State of Gajarat and others, [1] observed that the impugned orders are not vitiated with any malafide intentions and cancellation of deputation is not prohibited by any statutory or service rules and ultimately dismissed the O.A. Hence, this writ petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.P.V.Krishnaiah, vehemently contended that when the Tribunal has not decided the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.610 to the deputations, it ought to have set-aside the cancellation orders of deputation based on G.O.Ms.No.610. He contends that the impugned orders before the Tribunal were issued erroneously by the authorities without application of mind and without examining the legality of such orders, and it was issued, as if the Presidential Order and G.O. were applicable to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. He further contends that the Tribunal without deciding point No.1, upheld the cancellation orders passed by the respondents. 9. The Tribunal after going through G.O.Ms.No.610 and after discussing elaborately, has observed that the G.O. has nothing to do with the repatriation of employees who are brought under deputation and the G.O. does not speak about deputation or their cancellation. It is true that in G.O.Rt.No.842, Municipal Administration Urban Development Department dated 3.7.2007 and other G.Os, a reference was made with regard to G.O.Ms.No.610 and also Six Point Formula, but they are referred for a limited purpose so as to convey the Policy of the State to implement the Presidential Order and Six Point Formula i.e. local candidates have to occupy the relevant posts in accordance with the Presidential Order. So there is no necessity to consider the validity of G.O.Ms.No.610 in the O.A. In fact, number of O.As were filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.610 and they are pending before the Full Bench of the Tribunal. Therefore, it is not necessary to decide the said issue in the present O.A. in order to adjudicate the validity of the impugned orders, cancelling the deputation and repatriating the petitioner to his parent department. 10. It is for the borrowing department or the parent department to decide whether an employee is to be deputed or to be repatriated. It is an administrative action. Deputation does not affect the service conditions of the employee. The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions held that it is prerogative right of the employer to depute or repatriate an employee and the employee has no right to work in a particular place. In the recent past, a Division Bench of this court has elaborately dealt with similar matters, filed by similarly situated persons like the petitioner, in W.P.Nos. 3547, 3607 and 3642 of 2008 and dismissed those writ petitions by a common order dated 28.02.2008. 11. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court and in the circumstances, we do find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal so as to call for interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ​ _____________ SANJAY KUMAR,J 29th January,2009. Stp THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P. No.875 of 2009 29-01-2009 [1] AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1132,