B. Latchanna Vs. Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Environment and Forest Etc. and ors.

B. Latchanna vs Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Environment and Forest Etc. and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Jan 20, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/445939

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/445939
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: T. Meena Kumari and ;Ghulam Mohammed, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 20, 2003
Case Number: W.P. No. 25741 of 2002
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

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

B. Latchanna

Advocate R.K. Suri, Adv.

Respondent

Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Environment and Forest Etc. and ors.

Advocate Govt. Pleader for Services-I for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4

Legal References

Reported In: 2003(2)ALT449

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..........in conservator of forests, visakhapatnam no. 11413/98-m8 dated 3-4-1999 for neglect of duty in executing jem works and the second disciplinary case pertains to draft article of chargers which were issued in cf, visakhapatnam no. 1024/98-m8 dated 22-3-1999 for misusing of government funds and causing enormous waste to the state exchequer and unplanned development of central nursery. having regard to the said adverse remarks, the tribunal declined to interfere with the decision of the dpc.5. the learned counsel argued that the disciplinary committee ought to have adopted the procedure of sealed cover in giving promotion and the tribunal has failed to consider the said aspect. we are not in agreement with the said contention of the learned counsel for the reason that the tribunal is not the appellate authority over the findings of the screening committee and the tribunal has come to the conclusions basing on the material available on record and the avernments made in the counter.6. having regard to the facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the order passed by the tribunal. there is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

T. Meena Kumari, J.

1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Certiorari calling for the records and setting aside the order dated 6-8-2002 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 172 of 2002 upholding the impugned proceedings dated 30-12-2000 of the 2nd respondent and consequently to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests on par with his juniors w.e.f. 30-12-2000.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Forest Range Officer in Visakhapatnam Circle on 7-11-1997. He stood at Sl.No. 151 in the seniority list for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator and the promotions have already been made upto Sl.No. 150. While so, the 2nd respondent herein issued proceedings Rc.No. 1089/99/M1 dated 30-12-2000 promoting his juniors who figure in between Sl.Nos. 152 to 216 in the seniority list, without assigning any reasons for ignoring the case of the petitioner. Therefore, he filed O.A. 2082 of 2001 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal passed an order on 18-6-2001 directing him to approach the Government seeking for promotion. He made a representation dated 10-7-2001 to the Government and other respondents, but, as the respondents did not respond, he again filed O.A. 172 of 2002 before the Tribunal and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

4. It is the main contention of the petitioner that though he was placed at Sl.No. 151 in the seniority list, his juniors were given promotion without assigning any reasons for ignoring his case. However, a reading of the impugned order shows that a meeting of the Screening Committee was held on 21-3-2000, 22-3-2000, 23-3-2000 and 28-3-2000 and the Screening Committee in its meeting at para (III) that the case of the petitioner was not considered due to poor record and pendency of disciplinary cases. It was further stated in the counter filed before the Tribunal that the 1st disciplinary case relates to draft article of charges which were issued in Conservator of Forests, Visakhapatnam No. 11413/98-M8 dated 3-4-1999 for neglect of duty in executing JEM works and the second disciplinary case pertains to draft article of chargers which were issued in CF, Visakhapatnam No. 1024/98-M8 dated 22-3-1999 for misusing of Government funds and causing enormous waste to the State exchequer and unplanned development of central nursery. Having regard to the said adverse remarks, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the decision of the DPC.

5. The learned counsel argued that the Disciplinary Committee ought to have adopted the procedure of sealed cover in giving promotion and the Tribunal has failed to consider the said aspect. We are not in agreement with the said contention of the learned counsel for the reason that the Tribunal is not the appellate authority over the findings of the Screening Committee and the Tribunal has come to the conclusions basing on the material available on record and the avernments made in the counter.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the order passed by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2003 Same Parties B. Latchanna vs Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, En... Same Subject Service Same Judge T. Meena Kumari and ;Ghulam Mohammed, JJ.

Service Administrative Tribunal Planned development writ of certiorari Disciplinary case Having regard to Or otherwise