Telangana High Court
WP/28175/2008 of P. Satya Suryanarayana Vs P. Manohar Babu on 29 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 28175 of 2008 Between: P. Satya
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMEDand THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 28175 of 2008
Between:
P. Satya Suryanarayana S/o. Viswanatham O & M, Cirlce-II, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 P. Manohar Babu S/o. Late Pullaiah Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Baord,Hyderabad.
2 The Managing Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Baord, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Certiorari (i) to call for the records connected with theorders of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal dt. 14.11.2008 inM.A.No.2566/2008 in O.A.No.7861/2008, and quash the same (ii) to allowthe M.A.No.2566/2008 in O.A.No.7861/2008; and issue any otherappropriate writ, order or direction Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BALA KRISHNA MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY
The Court made the following :
ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED)
This Writ Petition has been field by the applicant in M.A.NO.2566/2008 in O.A.No. 7861 of 2008 assailing the orders dated 14.11.2008passed therein, by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.
The facts in brief leading to filing of this Writ Petition by theapplicant in M.A.No. 2566/2008 in O.A.No. 7861 of 2008 are:
M.A. has been filed by the applicant to get implead himself in the O.A. The impugned order passed in O.A reads as under:
“Sri P. Manohar Babu, Chief General Manager (E) ( on leave)applied for earned leave vide reference 1[st] cited for one monthperiod from 12.5.2008 and the same was communicated to ENC,PH from this office vide reference 2[nd] cited.
Further, he has extended the earned leave upto 11.7.2008 vide hisapplication 3[rd] cited which was communicated to ENC, PH videthis office letter 4[th] cited. Again he has extended the earned leavefrom 12.7.2008 for further period of 45 days vide his application 5[th]cited.
Meanwhile Sri P. Manohar Babu, CGM (E) (on leave) hassubmitted his joining report dated 23.7.2008, duly canceling hisleave. The same is herewith communicated.In view of the above and as the leave period has already beenexceeded (60) days, the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health, isrequested to issue necessary posting orders to Sri P. ManoharBabu, Chief General Manger (E) (on leave) at his end.”
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that theimpugned order is passed against the applicant in O.A. by the ManagingDirector i.e., official respondent herein by directing the applicant therein toreport before the Engineer in Chief, Public Health for necessary posting orders. He further submitted that the impugned order issued by theManaging Director i.e., official respondent affect the rights of the applicantin MA. He relied on the judgment of the Division Bench in W.P.No.26072 of 2005 and batch.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for therespondents contended that the applicant in O.A has been working asChief General Manager since 2004 onwards and his services wereabsorbed in the Board Services as Deputy Executive Engineer as per theproceedings dated 5.8.1992. Further, the PH & ME Engineers who areworking as on 1.11.1989 and opted for absorption belong to Zones 1 to Vwhose options are to be finalized after obtaining the views of GAD andLAW as per the decision of the Board. The absorption in the Boardservice has become final, as everything was done as per the procedureprescribed under Section 113 of MWSS Act, 15 of 1989 and the optionexercised by the applicant was accepted and he was absorbed way backin 1992 and according to the applicant, he is fully qualified and eligible tobe promoted as Director.
We have heard both the counsel and also perused the materialmade available on record.
The relevant portion in the judgment of the Division Bench in W.P.No. 26072 of 2005 held as under:
“We therefore, conclude, in the light of the foregoing discussion;(i)that all appointments under the Board are required to be madeby the Board only and the State of Andhra Pradesh has noauthority to make any appointment to any post under the Board. is ……Lastly, we hold that in view of our conclusion that all theappointments made by the State of Andhra Pradesh, subsequentto the constitution of the Board, are illegal…..”
Aggrieved by the order passed in W.P.No. 26072 of 2005, theState of Andhra Pradesh approached the Supreme Court and theSupreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 7290 of 2007,granted interim stay of the repatriation to the Government until furtherorders.
The Tribunal after taking into consideration all the aspects held that while allowing the M.A.No. 2766/2007, no reasons were given and nodiscussion has been made and the facts of that case and the present casecannot be treated as similar. It also held that as far as the present M.A forimpleadment is concerned, the applicant in O.A has filed a counter statingthat the applicant in M.A has not specifically stated as to how he is anecessary party to the O.A. In the counter filed in M.A by the applicant inO.A it was stated that any orders passed against the impugned orders inO.A will not affect the applicant in M.A, and therefore, the applicant in M.Ahas no locus to get impleaded and accordingly, dismissed the M.A.
We see no reasons to interfere with the reasoned order passed bythe Tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We also see noillegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no orderas to costs.
_____________________________
GHULAM MOHAMMED, J
______________________________
B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, JDt. 29.12.2008KA
..... REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //
SECTION OFFICER
To
1 P. Manohar Babu S/o. Late Pullaiah
Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Baord,Hyderabad.
2 The Managing Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply andSewerage Baord, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
3. 2CD copies