IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 574 of 2008 Between: G.V. Gopal Rao, S/o. Late G.V.L. Narasimha Rao, Andhra Pradesh Society for Training and Employment Promotion (APSTEP), 2-1-566/B/1, Nallakunta, Hyderabad - 500 044. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Society for Training and Employment Promotion (APSTEP), O/o. Commissioner, Youth Services, 5-4-203, Behind Boats Club, Secunderabad - 500 003. 2 The District Collector-cum-Chairman, Keesara Society for Training & Employment Promotion (KSTEP), Department of Youth Services, R.R. District, 1st Floor, Sneha Silver Jubilee Bhavan, Collectorate Complex, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad-4. 3 The Chief Executive Officer, KSTEP, R.R. District, 1st Floor, Sneha Silver Jubilee Bhavan, Collectorate Complex, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad- 4. .....RESPONDENTS 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 orders, Directions particularly a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Proc.No.1/Spl/CEO/KSTEP/RR/2007, dated 21.11.2007 of the 3rd respondent with consequential proceedings No. 1165/APSTEP/A/91, dated 20.12.2007 of the 1st respondent and proceedings No. 1165/APSTEP/A/91, dated 20.12.2007 of the 1st respondent as well as the proceedings No.1165/APSTEP/A/91, dated 9.1.2008, of the 1st respondent and proceedings/letter dated 21.11.2007 addressed to the Commissioner of Youth Services and Managing Director, APSTEP by the 2nd Respondent and thereby set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, violative of Art 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the circular 1165/APSTEP/Admn/91, dated 19.12.2005 without jurisdiction, malice and discriminative in nature, in the interest of justice and pass any such other order or orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.RAJA RAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.RAMANUJA CHARI The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was initially appointed as Technical Assistant- cum-Supervisor in the Keesara Society for Training and Employment Promotion (KSTEP), second respondent herein, which is one of the units of the Andhra Pradesh Society for Training and Employment Promotion (APSTEP), first respondent herein, in June 1991. In April 2000, he was promoted to the post of Manager by the Managing Director of APSTEP. The Manager is a statewide post in the first respondent-society. The District Units function under the Chairmanship of the District Collector, and next to him, there would be a Chief Executive Officer. The Manager is the subordinate to the Chief Executive Officer. The power to appoint, or transfer, a Manager, vests with the Managing Director of the State Level Society. The Chairman-cum-District Collector of the second respondent unit noticed certain acts of omission and commission on the part of the petitioner and had undertaken correspondence with respondents 1 and 3. As a result, the third respondent issued proceedings, dated 21.11.2007, surrendering the petitioner to the first respondent. The latter, in turn, issued two proceedings on 20.12.2007. Through one of the proceedings, he relieved the petitioner from duties at the second respondent on 20.12.2007 and through another, he transferred the petitioner to the unit at Srikakulam. On a representation, dated 06.11.2007, made by the petitioner, a revised order was passed by the first respondent, transferring the petitioner to the unit at Nizamabad. The petitioner challenges the above set of proceedings. The petitioner contends that the transfer was occasioned, on account of the surrender made by respondents 2 and 3, who are not vested with the relevant power. On behalf of respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed, narrating the circumstances that led to the transfer of the petitioner. In addition to making a reference to the various acts of omission and commission on the part of the petitioner, it is also stated that there is a need of experienced Manager at Nizamabad to launch certain schemes. Heard Sri M.V.Rajaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Ramanujachary, learned counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the only authority to appoint, transfer or to otherwise deal with the Manager is the first respondent. Things would have been altogether different, had the transfer been effected by the first respondent, on his own accord, from one place to another. In the instant case, the District Collector issued a letter, dated 21.11.2007, surrendering the petitioner to the first respondent. On the same day, the Chief Executive Officer of the Rangareddy District unit, has passed similar orders. It was one month later that the first respondent came into picture and accepted surrender. Having accepted the surrender, the first respondent transferred the petitioner to the unit at Srikakulam and thereafter, to Nizamabad. The whole exercise undertaken by the first respondent is untenable. He virtually, has surrendered his powers in favour of respondents 2 and 3, in the context of posting of the petitioner. In case, it became necessary to transfer the petitioner from one place to another, it was only for the first respondent to have passed necessary orders. The various instances mentioned by the second respondent in relation to the petitioner could, at the most, have been the reasons to persuade the first respondent to take any steps. However, respondents 2 and 3 assumed themselves, the power to surrender the petitioner, which, in fact, they do not possess. The first respondent, in turn, felt helpless, except to follow up the action, commencing with the surrender of the petitioner by respondents 2 and 3. The whole exercise demonstrates that the respective authorities did not make any effort to know the spheres of their powers. Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. It is, however, left open to the first respondent to take stock of the situation and pass appropriate orders. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.23.04.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MJ}