Re-Engagement Of Terminated Employees Can't Be Said To Be A ‘Necessary Evil’: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court remarked that re-engagement of the terminated employees cannot be said to be a ‘necessary evil’.

The Court remarked thus in a batch of Writ Petitions filed by the terminated employees against the Termination Orders.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar observed, “We are constrained to observe that by no stretch of imagination, re-engagement of terminated employees can be said to be a ‘necessary evil’. If we assuage our judicial conscience and treat such action as ‘necessary evil’, it will look more and more necessary and less and less evil.”

Senior Advocates M. Surender Rao and T. Suryakaran Reddy appeared for the Petitioners while Special Government Pleader (SGP) S. Rahul Reddy, Government Pleader (GP) B. Rajeshwar Reddy, Senior Advocates G. Vidyasagar, and L. Ravichander appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts -

The Andhra Pradesh State issued a notification for recruitment of para-medical posts i.e., Multi Purpose Health Assistant (MPHA) (Male) in 2002. As per the said notification, the qualification for the said post was S.S.C.+M.P.H.A. Aggrieved by the prescription of aforesaid qualification, Original Application was filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The qualification so prescribed in the notification was upheld by the Tribunal. The Government pursuant to certain complaints regarding bogus certificates conducted enquiry and cancelled the selection process. Certain Petitioners feeling aggrieved by the Order of Tribunal and cancellation of selection, filed two Writ Petitions before the High Court. Apart from the said Writ Petitions, some other similar Writ Petitions were also filed. Initially, the Court permitted the candidates having qualification of Intermediate to participate in the selection, however, the Writ Petitions were decided in 2003 and qualifications so prescribed as S.S.C. and Diploma in Health Assistant from recognized institute were upheld.

However, the Government as well as aggrieved parties assailed the same before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the Appeals, the State Government filed a modification Petition before the Supreme Court seeking leave to appoint MPHA in exigency of administration. The Supreme Court permitted the State Government to proceed with appointment of MPHA. Consequently, a Government Order (GO) was issued permitting the Director of the Department to notify and fill-up the vacancies existing as on September 15, 2006. The said Civil Appeals came up for hearing before the Supreme Court and ultimately, the same were dismissed and common Order of the High Court was upheld. Thereafter, the Government issued an Order directing termination of candidates, who were less meritorious and further directed to appoint meritorious candidates by redrawing the selected list. The merit list was, accordingly, redrawn. During 2012-2013, a sizeable number of less meritorious candidates, who were appointed beyond the sanctioned strength were terminated.

The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “The order of learned single Judge deserves to be interfered with for yet another reason. The learned single Bench has directed to appoint meritorious candidates by creating supernumerary posts. The supernumerary posts cannot be directed to be created on mere asking or as a matter of routine.”

The Court referred to the case of Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008) 1 SCC 683 in which it was held that the decision of creation of posts is in the province of executive and Courts ordinarily cannot issue direction for creation of posts.

“In view of above analysis, we reluctantly set aside the G.O.Rt.No.1207, dated 09.10.2013. Both the Governments shall take consequential action upon setting aside of G.O.Rt.No.1207 within ninety days. As held in W.P.No.15107 of 2002 and batch, only such employees deserve continuance whose names find place in the select list prepared as per clause (d) of para 60 of the judgment in W.P.No.15107 of 2002 and batch”, it said.

The Court added that, if any vacancy has arisen thereafter, it must be filled up as per ‘public policy’ and in accordance with the relevant recruitment rules.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and set aside the Government Order.

Cause Title- G. Nagaraju and Others v. The Government of A.P.

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocates M. Surender Rao, T. Suryakaran Reddy, Advocates V.V. Prabhakar Rao, and K. Sita Ram.

Respondents: SGP S. Rahul Reddy, GP B. Rajeshwar Reddy, Senior Advocates G. Vidyasagar, and L. Ravichander

Click here to read/download the Judgment