Proceedings of the Addl.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

Present: Sri G.Lakshmi Prasad,

CCT’s Ref. No. DX2/473/2008 Dated.03-03-2010

Sub: P.S.C.T. Department - Zone-VI – Secunderabad and Hyderabad ® Nodal Divisions – Integrated Seniority list of ACTOs from the panel year 2000-01 to 2004-05 – Published – Integrated seniority of Zone-VI prepared –Objections called for – Objections Filed - Finalised – Orders – Issued.

Ref: 1.DC(CT), Secunderabad Division, Rc.No. A2/49/2006, dt. 5-2-2008.

2.DC(CT), Hyderabad ® Division, Rc. No. E1/782/2005, dt. 28-3-2008

and 18-4-2008 published in the A.P.Extraordinary Gazette Part-II

No.112, dt. 14-3-2008 and 173, dt.23-4-2008.

3. CCT’s Proceedings Ref.No.DX2/473/2008, dated.29-12-2008.

4. CCT’s Ref.No.DX2/473/2008, dated 04-11-2009.

5. Representation of Sri M.Srniivas Rao, ACTO dt.18-11-2009

6. DC (CT) Secunderabad Div RC No.A2/663/09,dt.08-12-2009.

7. DC (CT) SRNR RC. No.A1/361/2009,dt 05-12-2009.

8. DC (CT) Hyd.Rural Div.RC.No.E1/782/2005,dt.17-12-2009.

9. Represnetaion of Sri B.Upender Reddy, ACTO, dt.18-12-2009.

10. Representation of Sri G.Srinivas, ACTO, dt.21-12-2009.

11. Representation of Sri P.Sivaram Reddy, ACTO, dt.09-12-2009.

12.DC (CT) Hyderabad Rural Div.RC.No.E1/782/2005,dt.25-01-09.

13. DC (CT) Hyderabad Rural Div.RC.No.E1/782/2005,dt.21-01-09.

* * *

ORDER:

In the references first and second cited, the Nodal Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad and Nodal Deputy Commissioner(CT), Hyderabad ® Divisions have passed orders finalizing the Seniority list of ACTOs of Secunderabad and Hyderabad Nodal Divisions for the years 2000-01 to 2004-05.

2. After interspersing the final seniority list of ACTOs of the above two Nodal Divisions, a Show cause notice proposing Integrated Seniority list of ACTOs of Zone – VI for the years 2000-01 to 2004-05 with reference to their dates of joining as ACTOs, as per Rule 33(a) of APS & SS Rules, 1996 read with Rule 34 of APS & SS Rules, was issued in the reference fourth cited.

3. In response to the integrated show cause notice, nine (9) affected persons namely Sri M.Srinivas,ACTO, Smt.R.Sharmila, ACTO, Sri K.Sateesh,ACTO, Mohd Abdul Khader, ACTO, B.Narsi Reddy, ACTO, Sri V.Srinivasa Chary, ACTO, B.Upender Reddy, ACTO, Sri G.Srinivas, ACTO and Sri P.Sivaram Reddy ACTO have filed their written statement of objections.

The objections of the above ACTOs have been examined vis-a-vis the record and answered hereunder:

PTO

//2//

1. Objection of Sri M.Srinivas Rao: - It is his contention that against his name, it was stated as M.Srinivas Rao, DR (SC), but actually he belong to OC category.

Answer/Reply: - The objection filed by Sri M.Srinivas, ACTO has been examined with the records. He is selected as DR ACTO in the year 2001 under OC category, but by inadvertence SC was typed against his name. This is corrected, deleting (SC) against his name.

2.  Objections of Smt.R.Sharmila: - It is her contention that in the reference fourth cited while communicating the Show Cause Notice, for Integrated seniority list of ACTO of Zone VI, her name is placed at Sl.16 with remarks as “Probation not declared”. She has joined the duty on 07-02-2001 and has completed (2) years of continuous service without availing any leave, by 06-02-2003 A.N, her service were regularized w.e.f from 24-01-2004 and declared as an approved probationer w.e.f from 24-01-2006 by the DC(CT) Secunderabad Nodal Division. Hence, necessary correction may be made in the seniority list, as communicated.

Reply: - The objection filed by Smt.R.Sharmila, ACTO has been examined. She is a DR, ACTO of 2001 batch having joined in the Department on 07-02-2001. Every DR ACTO is required to pass all the Departmental Tests prescribed for the post of ACTO within a period of probation of two years under Rule 16(e) or in the extended period of one year under Rule 17(b) of the APS & SS Rules. Thus a DR ACTO has to pass all the Departmental Tests within a period of (3) year from the date of joining. In this case, she should have passed all the Departmental Tests by 07-02-2004 with reference to her date of joining on 07-02-2001. She passed the last Departmental Test on 24-01-2006. Non-passing of the Departmental Tests within the above period results in extension of probation of such probationer under Rule 16(h) of APS & SS Rules. Section 16(h) read as under:

“Notwithstanding any thing contained in the special rules or sub-rule(a) and (b) of rule 33, a probationer who does not pass the prescribed tests or acquire the prescribed special qualifications within the period of probation or within the extended period of probation under rule 17 and whose probation is further extended by the Government by an order under rule 31, till the date of his passing such tests or acquiring such qualifications, shall be deemed to have commenced the probation with effect from the date to be fixed by the government, which would be anterior to a date to his passing such tests or acquiring such special qualifications, so, however, that the interval between the two dates shall be equivalent to the prescribed period of probation, whether on duty or otherwise and seniority of such probationer shall be determined with reference to the date so fixed.

Contd../P-3

//3//

Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall apply in the cases of persons appointed to the class, category or grade in a service prior to the 9th March, 1981 and whose seniority in the said class, category or grade was fixed under sub-rule (b) of Rule 33, prior to the said date.”

As she passed the last “departmental test only on 24-01-2006, the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Secunderabad nodal Division, being the appointing authority has declared her probation w.e.f 24-01-2006, commencing her probation w.e.f 24-01-2004 under the above rule as against her date of joining on 07-02-2001. On account of this, the merit ranking assigned by the selection authority i.e. APPSC to her is disturbed/altered, and accordingly her seniority in the cadre of ACTO is revised and her name is shown in the panel year 2003-04, below Sri T.Ganesh and above the name of Smt.Anjali Kumari, Rule 16 (h) of the APS & SS rules has been already upheld by the Hon’ble APAT and the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in O.A Nos.557/07 and batch dt.28-7-2008 and W.P Nos.17219/08 and batch, dt.18-12-2008.

3. Common Objections of Sri K.Satheesh, ACTO, Sri B.Narsi Reddy, ACTO, Sri V.Srinivasa Chary, ACTO: - The following are their contentions to the proposed finalization of integrated seniority list of the DR ACTOs of Zone VI.

1.  The APPSC prepared ranking list as per roster point, it is intended only for selection process by applying the rule of reservation but not intended to determine inter-se-seniority of the selected candidates.

2.  Rule 33(B) of AP State & Subordinate Service rules, 1996 clearly stated that for preparation of inter-se-seniority orders of merit shall be followed.

3.  There is no rule provision in the AP State & Subordinate Service rules that the Roster points are the criteria for preparing the inter-se-seniority of the Direct Recruitment candidates. In the absence of such rule order of merit is only the criteria for preparation of ranking listt by applying the principle of natural justice.

4.  The Integrated seniority list in Annexure-I is not prepared in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the relevant provisions of the law and the rules. The ranking list which was prepared by the APPSC as per roster points and communicated to the commissioner of Commercial Taxes vide letter No.1616/RS-23-B/2003, dt.5-1-2008 is contra to the procedure established under the service law.

Contd./P-4

//4//

5.  Several decisions and judgments of the Apex Court as well as the High Courts repeatedly held in so many cases that while preparing inter-se-seniority of the Direct Recruitment candidates the order of merit alone is the criteria. This aspect is clearly held by the larger bench of Apex Court in Ajit Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in AIR 1999 SC 3471 and also reiterated the same by the full bench of the Supreme Court of India in Bimalesh Tanwar Vs State of Haryana and others reported in AIR 2003 SC 2000.

6.  As per Article 141 of the Constitution of the India the decision of the Supreme Court is the law of the land and therefore, the same is binging upon all the authorities concerned, while preparing the inter-se-seniority keeping the decisions under service rules in mind.

7.  The Higher authorities of CT department to get the Ranking list from the APPSC according to the order of merit for the purpose of preparing inter-se-seniority.

8.  Ranking list prepared by the APPSC as per merit which is ignored in the prepared list.

Reply: - The common objections filed by them have been carefully examined. Under Rule 33(b) of the APS & SS Rules, the merit list communicated by the APPSC shall form the basis for fixing the inter – se- seniority between the direct recruits. On the basis of the merit list communicated by the APPSC only, the seniority of the above DR ACTOs is fixed, or determined. The selection authority i.e. APPSC has not sent any revised merit list in the light of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, changing the earlier ranking given to the above DR ACTOs. In the absence of such revised merit ranking with reference to the marks scored by the above DR ACTOs from the selection authority, the earlier merit list sent by the APPSC in respect of these DR ACTOs continues to hold good, even now.

Therefore, the above common objections are unsustainable, and accordingly rejected.

Common Objections of Sri P.Sivaram Reddy, ACTO, Sri B.Upender Reddy and Sri G.Srinivas, ACTO: - It is their contention that they are city list candidates and they should have been included in the earlier panels of ACTOs in Secunderabad nodal division, on par with Sri B.Anjaneyulu and Sri MV.Ch Acharyulu ACTOs who were also city list candidates to Vijayawada Division and included in the earlier panels of ACTOs of Vijayawada Division. The Government have also included the name of said persons in the DCTOs panel vide G.O Ms No.1256, Rev (CT.I) Dept., dated 31-10-2008, basing on the inclusion of their names in the earlier ACTOs panel of Vijayawada Division.

Contd../p-5

//5//

Reply: Their common objections are examined. The present exercise is finalization of seniority list of ACTOs for the years 2000-01 to 2004-05 of Zone VI, and their inclusion in the panel year 2000-01 is not disputed. However, they have requested for inclusion of their names in the earlier panels as was done in the cases of Sri B.Anjaneyulu and Sri MV.Ch Acharyulu ACTOs, other city list candidate in Vijayawada Division. Their request is totally irrelevant now for the finalization of ACTO seniority list for the year 2000-01 to 2004-05. Hence, their plea is devoid of any merit and unsustainable. However, their request for inclusion of their names in the earlier panel of ACTOs of Zone-VI has been referred to Government and orders of the Government awaited.

Objections filed by Sri Mohd. Abdul Khader, ACTO: - It is his contention that he was given notional seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistant over Smt V.Lalitha Kumari, ACTO as per orders of the Hon’ble APAT in O.A No.264/96 dt.05-4-1996. But this was not considered by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division as appointing authority despite repeated representations, Smt.V.Lalitha Kumari was shown as senior to him in the cadre of ACTO in the unit list of Hyderabad Rural division, which is not correct according to him.

Reply:-The above objection has been examined vis-a vis the record When the appointing authority of his unit of appointment finalised the seniority list of ACTOs for the periods from 2000-01 to 2004-05, showing the name Smt.V.Lalitha Kumari as senior to him, he should have filed an appeal to the appropriate authority questing her Seniority over him. The record of this office does not disclose any evidence to the effect that he filed any appeal against the above seniority. Thus, he allowed his seniority in the cadre of ACTO below Smt.V.Lalitha Kumar, to become final. Under, rule 34 of the APS & SS Rules Integration of seniority list of ACTOs shall be made by interspersing the seniority list finalised by the two units of appointment in Zone VI namely DC (CT) Hyderabad Rural Division and the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Secunderabad division, with reference to the dates of joining as per rule 33(a) of the APS & SS Rules without disturbing the seniority of his unit of appointment. Thus, the objections of Sri Mohd. Khader is devoid of any merit, and unsustainable, also. Hence, his contention is rejected.

Objection filed by Sri R.Vinod Nayak, ACTO: - It is his contention that his name was shown as Sri Peeka Nayak Ramavathu (DR) instead of Sri R.Venod Nayak (DR) as per A.P Gazette Part-II Extraordinary No.114 dated.25-09-2000. He requested for rectification of his name as R.Vinod Nayak.

Reply: - The objection filed by Sri R.Vinod Nayak, ACTO has been examined with reference to the record of this office in ref.No.DX2/245/09. As per A.P Gazette Part-II Extraordinary No.114 dated.25-09-2000, his name is changed from Sri Peeka Nayak Ramavathu to Sri R.Vinod Nayak. Accordingly his name would be read as Sri R.Vinod Nayak in the Integrated Seniority List of ACTOs of Zone VI prepared for the years 2000-01 to 2004-05.

Contd../p-6

//6//

With the above modification, the Show Cause Notice issued in the reference fourth cited, is hereby confirmed, and accordingly orders passed.