WP/23951/2004 of Pitla Ramachandra, Vs The Prl.Secretary to Government, on 30 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY

and

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

WRIT PETITION NO : 23951 of 2004

Between:

Pitla Ramachandra, s/o Narayana,

r/o Meedipentla (V), Bhoomaiahgaripalli Post, Vemula (M) ofCuddapah District.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Prl.Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Govt. of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2 The Prl.Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Govt. of A.P.,Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3 The Commissioner of Fisheries, Government of A.P., Shantinagar, Hyderabad.

4 The District Collector, Cuddapah.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying thatin the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtwill be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more in the natureof writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order of the respondent No.1 issued in Memo No.2025/Fish.I(2)/2001-4 dt.22-6-01 in rejectingthe request of the petitioner for appointment to the post ofwatchman/Attender in any existing vacancy in Cuddapah, Kurnool orAnantapur and the rejection of the application by the Hon'ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 6-4-2004 inO.A.No.7000/2001 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and16 of the Constitution of India, besides being violative of principles ofnatural justice; while issuing a consequential direction to therespondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment toany last grade service in any existing vacant post in any District ofRayalaseema by duly relaxing the relevant rules in the interest ofjustice.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.GOVARDHANACHARY

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES-I

The Court made the following :

ORDER (per Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.Bikshapathy)

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.7000 of 2001 dated 6-4-2004.

The case of the petitioner is that his brother who is a Governmentservant and working as a Record Assistant in Commercial TaxDepartment, rendered humane service in recovering 11 dead bodiesfrom Somasila Reservoir during the period from 14-9-1996 to 17-9-1996 and in saving 953 persons from floods in different villages onthe cause way of river Papagni. Therefore the petitioner sought adirection to the respondents for an appointment in Governmentservice. Since the Government refused to grant employment to thepetitioner on the ground that the relevant Rules cannot be relaxed asevery appointment in Government Departments should be made by following recruitment procedure, he approached the A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.NO.7000/2001 and the Tribunal by theorder dated 6-4-2004 dismissed the said O.A. The present WritPetition is filed challenging the said order of the Tribunal dated 6-4-2004.

The Government by the proceedings dated 22-6-2001 rejectedthe application of the petitioner on the ground that the relevant Rulescannot be relaxed as every appointment in Government Departmentsshould be made by following recruitment procedure. The Tribunalalso after considering the matter dismissed the O.A. observing thatthe claim of the petitioner is not based on any rule or apparent legalright and that the O.A. itself is frivolous in nature and deserves to bedismissed.

Conclusion

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the brother of thepetitioner had saved about 953 persons from flood water in differentvillages on the cause way of river Papagni and also extracted 11dead bodies from the Somasila Reservoir during the period from 14-9-1996 to 17-9-1996. Therefore the services of the brother of thepetitioner should be recognized by giving the petitioner suitableemployment in Government.

The learned Government Pleader for Services-I however submittedthat it is not the petitioner who has rendered the yeoman services insaving the lives of the people but it is his brother who is already employed in Government service and therefore there is no questionof he being given employment in Government again. It is furthersubmitted that the Government is willing to pay cash reward to thebrother of the petitioner keeping in view the services rendered by himin rescue operations.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also thelearned Government Pleader for Services-I.

It is not in dispute that the brother of the petitioner had rendereduseful service in the accident which took place in Somasila Project. Inthe said circumstances, the writ petitioner as such is not entitled forany relief. However, it is open for the Government to grantappropriate cash reward to the brother of the petitioner, if they chooseto do so. But the question of providing employment in Government tothe writ petitioner does not arise in this case as rightly observed bythe Tribunal.

Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

____________________

Justice G.Bikshapathy

____________________

Justice P.S.NarayanaDate : 30-12-2004

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To

1 The Prl.Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Govt. of A.P.,Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2 The Prl.Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Govt. of A.P.,Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3 The Commissioner of Fisheries, Government of A.P., Shantinagar, Hyderabad.

4 The District Collector, Cuddapah.

5. 2 C.Cs. to Government Pleader for Services-I, High Court of A.P.

Hyderabad (OUT)

6. 2 C.D. copies.