IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 22590 of 2002 Between: 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt., Social Welafare (TW) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer Tribal Welfare, A.P., Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 M. Veera Reddy Dy. Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare Sub-Division, Suddimalla, Khammam District. 2 T.Venkateswara Rao Dy. Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 3 G.S.V.V.S.V.Prasad Dy. Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paravathipuram, Vizianagaram District. 4 P.Mallikarjun Dy. Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Utnoor, Adilabad District. .....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 appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Judgment passed in O.A.No. 7243/2001 and with MA 3812/01 and VMA 720/01 21.3.2002 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P. No.22590 of 2002 ORDER: (per GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) 1. This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order dated 21.03.2002 passed in O.A.No.7243 of 2001 with M.A. No.3812 of 2001 and V.M.A. No.720 of 2001 on the ﬁle of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short “The Tribunal”). 2. The respondents ﬁled the above O.A. challenging the Memo No.14225/TW.Ser.-II-1/98-50, dated 5.10.2001 by which the regularization of certain Assistant Executive Engineers in Tribal Welfare Department was annulled. 3. The case of the respondents is that though they were appointed initially, in view of the exigency in the Tribal Welfare Department in the Engineering Wing, the Government of Andhra Pradesh have consulted with the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (in short” the APPSC’), which informed that there is no objection to ﬁll up the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers for Tribal Areas through Employment Exchange on adhoc basis, provided they were replaced by the candidates as and when allotted on regular basis through direct recruitment by the APPSC. Pursuant thereto, the respondents have been issued appointment orders purely on adhoc basis with the conditions that they have to serve the Engineering Wing in the Tribal Welfare Department for a minimum period of 3 years or till they get selected by the APPSC or replaced by the candidates by APPSC, whichever is earlier. 4. It is the case of the respondents that the Government issued Special Rules, vide G.O.M.s.No.67, Social Welfare, dated 12.4.1994 and they have made representations for regularization of the services and that the Government vide its Memo No.2583/VI/94-2 dated 10.5.1994 instructed the Chief Engineer to take necessary steps to consider their regularization as AEEs/AEs in the Tribal Welfare Engineering Wing as the Chief Engineer is the appointing authority as per Rule 4 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules. The Chief Engineer vide his proceedings No.B1/2900/94 dated 6.6.1994 regularized the services of the respondents from the date of their temporary appointment in terms of the Rules in G.O.Ms.No.67 and subsequently the Chief Engineer vide proceedings dated 10.10.1994 declared the probation of the respondents. 5. The grievance of the respondents-applicants is that the Government issued Memo dated 5.10.2001 cancelling the order of regularization in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents ﬁled O.A.No.7243 of 2001, which was allowed thereby setting aside the Memo dated 5.10.2001. Challenging the same, this writ petition is ﬁled by the State of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 7. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners contended that the Memo dated 5.10-2001 is the internal correspondence between the Government and the Chief Engineer, Tribal Welfare Department and as such, it is premature to challenge the Memo. The learned Government Pleader further contended that the respondents have been appointed on adhoc basis and they cannot claim to be appointed as a matter of right especially when they had given an undertaking that they will serve the department for a minimum period of three years or till they get selected or replaced by the APPSC candidates whichever is earlier. He also contended that the Chief Engineer is not the competent authority to regularize the services of the respondents and the regularization is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.81 dated 13.2.1986. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the respondents have been regularized on the basis of the direction issued by the Government in its Memo vide dated 10.5.1994 and as such their regularization in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer is valid and regular and the Tribunal has rightly set-aside the memo, dated 05.10.2001. 9. We have considered the rival contentions of both the counsel and perused the record. 10. A perusal of the record shows that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.720, Social Welfare Department, dated 24.4.1984 have created separate Engineering Wing in Tribal Welfare Department and the respondents have been appointed on adhoc basis. This was done after consultation with the APPSC. Thereafter, the Government issued a G.O.Ms.No.151, Social Welfare, dated 16.10.1984 appointing the respondents by notifying the vacancies to the Employment Exchange and after subjecting them to selection process by a Committee of Chief Engineers. The selection of the respondents has been made by following the requirements under the relevant Rules relating to reservation, qualiﬁcation, age etc. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.81, GAD, dated 13.2.1986 regularizing the services of temporary Assistant Executive Engineers. In G.O.Ms.No.38 SW, 14-3- 1985, it is speciﬁcally provided that in respect of the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, the Chief Engineer is the appointing authority. Further, the Government in their Memo dated 10-5-1994 informed the Chief Engineer to regularize the services of the respondents as he is the appointing authority under Rule 4 (4) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. Thereafter, the services of the respondents were regularized through proceedings dated 6-6-1994 and further issued proceedings dated 10-10-1994 declaring the probation of the respondents. Further the respondents were promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer. Though in the regularization orders dated 6-6-1994, the G.O.Ms.No.81, GAD, dated 13-2-1986 is not referred, the conditions stipulated in the G.O. have been complied with and as such, we are of the view that their regularization cannot be faulted. 11. For the foregoing reasons, Tribunal has rightly allowed the O.A. setting aside the Memo dated 5-10-2001 and further the Tribunal has passed a comprehensive and reasoned order dealing with all the aspects. In the circumstances, the impugned order does not suﬀer from any error of jurisdiction calling for interference by this court in exercise of Certiorari jurisdiction. 12. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J 21st,August,2008. Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VEENA}