Telangana High Court
WP/27498/2005 of Y.Satish Mallik, Vs The Government of A.P., Rep by its Principal Secretary, on 26 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.27498 of 2005 Date:26.12.2005 Y.Satish Mallik --------PETITIONER The Government of A.P. others. ---------RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Night Watchman on a consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month on 11.12.2000 in
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
W.P.No.27498 of 2005
Date:26.12.2005
Y.Satish Mallik
--------PETITIONER
The Government of A.P. others.
---------RESPONDENTS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner was initially appointed as a Night Watchman on a consolidated pay ofRs.1,000/- per month on 11.12.2000 in Sreekalahastheeswara SwamyDevasthanam, the third respondent herein. Subsequently, the then Commissioner ofEndowments accorded permission for appointment of the petitioner, on a regularbasis, as Junior Assistant by creating a super-numerated vacancy throughproceedings, dated 07.05.2005. In turn, the Devasthanam appointed the petitioner ina pay scale on 26.05.2005.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, the first respondent herein, reviewed the casesof appointments, promotions and regularizations of employees in the EndowmentsDepartment during the tenure of a Commissioner. A common order was passed inG.O.Ms.No.1422, Revenue (Endowments. I) Department, dated 25.07.2005, settingaside all such appointments. The appointment of the petitioner as L.D.C. was alsocovered by the said G.O.
In a Batch of writ petitions filed against G.O.Ms.No.1422, this Court took the viewthat the first respondent was under obligation to issue notices to the affected parties,before exercising its power under Section 93 of A.P. Charitable & Hindu ReligiousInstitutions and Endowments Act. The petitioner submitted a representation, directlyto the first respondent narrating his grievance. Thereupon, the first respondentissued a show cause notice, dated 23.11.2005, directing the petitioner, to submit an explanation, as to why the proceedings of the Commissioner, dated 07.05.2005,shall not be set aside. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 06.12.2005. Hechallenges the proceedings, dated 17.08.2005, through which, his appointment wascancelled.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader forEndowments and the learned standing counsel for the Devasthanam.
The facts narrated above disclose that the petitioner had submitted a representationto the first respondent pointing out that his name was wrongly included in theAnnexure of G.O.Ms.No.1422, dated 25.07.2005. In all fairness, the first respondentissued the show cause notice to the petitioner on 23.11.2005 and the petitioner, inturn, had submitted his explanation on 06.12.2005. At this stage, it is not open to thepetitioner to challenge the order of cancellation of his appointment, much less, forthis Court to deal with the same. The first respondent is already dealing with numberof similar cases and in fact orders have been passed in most of them. The case ofthe petitioner needs to be considered in the light of the explanation submitted byhim.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the firstrespondent to pass appropriate orders in pursuance of the show cause notice dated23.11.2005, issued by it, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of acopy of this order, duly taking into account the explanation submitted by thepetitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________
26.12.2005
Note: Issue C.C. in three days.
(B/o)
kdl