Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ch. Bheemaiah and anr. Vs. Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C and ors.

Ch. Bheemaiah and anr. vs Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Aug 17, 1999
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/444949

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition No. 12748 of 1994
Subject
Service
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation...

Key legal issue
Service
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed
Acts & sections
Service Law

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ch. Bheemaiah and anr.

Advocate P. Satyanarayana, Adv.

Respondent

Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C and ors.

Advocate T. Harnath, SC

Legal References

Acts
Service Law
Reported In
1999(6)ALT339

Excerpt

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........w.e.f. 13-11-1991. it is also stated that prior to the petitioners' engagement as such a panel of 80 casual cleaners was prepared by the departmental selection committee on 20-9-1991 and the candidates so selected were engaged on casual basis and that since these candidates had been temporarily appointed after process of recruitment they have been absorbed on regular basis depending on the availability of vacancies and following the rule of reservation and that the petitioners also will be considered for absorption as and when vacancies arise.3. the petitioners have claimed parity of treatment with certain persons, who, they allege, are juniors to them and have assailed the proceedings issued in their favour appointing them as regular cleaners superseding the claims of the petitioners, but no formal challenge has been made by the petitioners against any specific orders issued in favour of such persons. the averments in the counter affidavit clearly advert to the existence of relevant criteria distinguishing the case of the petitioners from that of the others; who were appointed as casual cleaners pursuant to the process of selection by the departmental selection committee. in the circumstances there are no merits in the writ petition warranting grant of relief as prayed for. the writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. no costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Goda Raghuram, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that they are entitled for regular absorption in regular scale of pay based on the dates of their first appointment with effect from the date on which their immediate juniors were absorbed in the said posts with all consequential and incidental benefits. This relief is claimed on the following averments:

(a) that the petitioners have passed S.S.C. in 1984 and possess the qualification of I.T.I. (Fitter) acquired in the year 1987 and that they have registered their names in the Employment Exchange;

(b) that by proceedings dt. 8-11-1991 of the Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda, the petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis as casual cleaners and that they have been continuing as such since then and that they are fully eligible and qualified for absorption as cleaners on regular basis;

(c) that persons who were appointed subsequent to the petitioners as cleaners on daily wage basis i.e., appointed on 21-11-1991 and 22-11-1991, have been appointed as cleaners under Regulation 17 of the APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Regulation, 1960, in regular pay scale of Rs. 875-1560 w.e.f. 10-10-1992, 23-6-1993 and 30-3-1993 respectively; that this treatment given to others who were juniors to the petitioners in the general hierarchy, is arbitrary and discriminatory; and

(d) that the petitioners have been making representations to the respondents including the representations dt. 25-5-1989 and 25-5-1990, but without any response.

2. The respondent-Corporation filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioners have not been selected by the Departmental Selection Committee, but were appointed pursuant to instructions of the Head Office, consequent on which they were engaged as casual cleaners w.e.f. 13-11-1991. It is also stated that prior to the petitioners' engagement as such a panel of 80 casual cleaners was prepared by the Departmental Selection Committee on 20-9-1991 and the candidates so selected were engaged on casual basis and that since these candidates had been temporarily appointed after process of recruitment they have been absorbed on regular basis depending on the availability of vacancies and following the rule of reservation and that the petitioners also will be considered for absorption as and when vacancies arise.

3. The petitioners have claimed parity of treatment with certain persons, who, they allege, are juniors to them and have assailed the proceedings issued in their favour appointing them as regular cleaners superseding the claims of the petitioners, but no formal challenge has been made by the petitioners against any specific orders issued in favour of such persons. The averments in the counter affidavit clearly advert to the existence of relevant criteria distinguishing the case of the petitioners from that of the others; who were appointed as casual cleaners pursuant to the process of selection by the departmental selection committee. In the circumstances there are no merits in the writ petition warranting grant of relief as prayed for. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial