IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH 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 : 4255 of 2009 Between: M. Sreenath, Executive Engineer-in-Charge, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally Circle, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Transport Roads & Buildings Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 M.C. Balamuni, Executive Engineer, (PH&ME Department) O/o. the Commissioner and Specail Officer, GHMC, Tanbund, Hyderabad (Waiting for Pre-posting ordrs in GHMC) 5 N. Naga Moha, Deputy Executive Engineer, Public Health, Hindupur, Anantapur District. .....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 of certiorari or any other appropriate, order or direction calling for the records relating to order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dt.18-2-2009 in O.A.No.1762 of 2009 and quash the same as illegal. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.SATYANARAYANA Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. Counsel for Respondent No.2: SMT KALPANA EKBOTE Counsel for Respondent No.3: GP FOR R & B. Counsel for Respondent No.4:J.R.MANOHAR RAO. The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per GM, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 18.02.2009 passed in O.A.No.1762 of 2009 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and for quashing the same. 2. The petitioner was originally appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer on 10.02.1982 in Zone-IV and promoted notionally as Deputy Executive Engineer during 1995-96 based on Post Graduate qualification. Due to the disputes on seniority, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.514 dated 01.05.2007 by relaxing General Rule 10(h) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 in favour of the petitioner and others and placed them as In-charge Executive Engineers during the panel year 2006-2007 subject to finalization of their seniority in the category of Assistant Executive Engineers. Accordingly, the petitioner was posted as In-charge Executive Engineer in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) on deputation and is working as such. While so, the first respondent vide memo, dated 29.01.2009, requested the second respondent to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department in view of G.O.Ms.No.610 dated 30.12.1985. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1762 of 2009 before the Tribunal, but the same was dismissed on 18.02.2009 on the ground that the impugned memo was issued in pursuance of the general policy, which cannot be challenged in a Court of law. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the post of In-charge Executive Engineer is a statewide post and as it does not come under the purview of zonal system, G.O.Ms.No.610 dated 30.12.1985, is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. He further contended that the memo issued by the first respondent does not disclose any reason for repatriating the petitioner to his parent department. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 130 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), which reads as under: “There shall be constituted for the purposes of this Act and of any law for the time being in force regulating the powers and duties of other local authorities, a Local Government Service consisting of officers and servants of a Corporation who hold any of the posts specified in Schedule C which may from time to time be amended by the Government. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to Schedule-C of the said Section, which specified the post of Executive Engineer and as such, the petitioner, who is working in GHMC on deputation, is liable to be repatriated to his parent department. He submitted that as the Government appointed the Executive Engineers on regular basis in GHMC, the services of the petitioner are not required. 5. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents contended that the post of Deputy Executive Engineer is a substantive post and the appointment of the petitioner is only on ad hoc basis, which does not confer any right on him. He further contended that it is always open to the department to repatriate the employees, who are working on deputation, whenever there is no exigency. He also contended that if the petitioner is allowed to continue in GHMC on deputation, the unofficial respondents would be deprived of their right to get promotion. 6. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the point that arises for consideration is whether the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner, who was working as Deputy Executive Engineer in Zone-IV, was promoted and posted as In-charge Executive Engineer in GHMC on deputation vide G.O.Rt.No.45 dated 07.01.2008 for a period of one year and at his request, the said deputation has been extended from time to time. So, it can be inferred that the petitioner is voluntarily continuing in GHMC on deputation, but not at the necessity of GHMC. 9. In the order impugned, the Tribunal has referred to the Circular Memo dated 02.07.2007 issued by the Government wherein it was mentioned that all the deputations to the local cadre posts of the employees from other local cadres shall be immediately cancelled and such employees be sent back to their respective units of appointment, and observed that in pursuance of the general policy, the deputation of the petitioner was cancelled and repatriated him to the parent department by referring to G.O.Ms.No.610 dated 30.12.1985 vide order dated 29.01.2009. The Tribunal has rightly observed that as the petitioner is working as In-charge Executive Engineer, which is a statewide post, he cannot claim that he will not come within the purview of G.O.Ms.No.610. That apart, since the Government has filled up the vacancies of Executive Engineers in GHMC on regular basis, and there is no vacancy of the said post, except deputation, as stated by the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner cannot be continued for a longer period in GHMC on deputation. Further, as per Section 130 of the Act, the powers and duties of officers and servants of a Corporation, who hold any of the posts specified in Schedule-C may from time to time be amended by the Government. Therefore, GHMC has a right to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department whenever there is no exigency and that in view of the policy decision taken by the Government to cancel the deputations and repatriate the employees to the parent department, the petitioner has no right to claim for his continuation in GHMC on deputation. 10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:12.03.2009 sj