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.

A. Lakshminarayana Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and ors.

A. Lakshminarayana vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Dec 23, 2002
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/446994

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. 24608 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
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A. Lakshminarayana

Advocate M. Surendar Rao, Adv.

Respondent

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and ors.

Advocate G.P. for Services-I

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In
2003(3)ALT691

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..........court or the tribunal tends to stall the smooth functioning of the administration, such interim order should be avoided, obviously, because, by granting such interim order the public administration cannot be reduced to a standstill and such a situation would not be in the public interest. looking from that angle, we do not think it appropriate for this court to step in under article 226 of the constitution and upset the interim order made by the learned tribunal in its discretion. on the other hand, we think that interest of the petitioner and similarly circumstanced persons would be safeguarded by directing that the promotions that may be made by the respondents to the post of deputy executive engineer in the department of a.p. public health would be subject to the final result of the original applications pending before the learned tribunal and further directing the learned tribunal to hear and dispose of the original applications within a time frame.4. it is brought to our notice as well as it is reflected in the impugned order of the learned tribunal that no counter was filed on behalf of the government despite granting a fair number of adjournments at their instance. this conduct of the government cannot be countenanced. in a matter like this, the government is expected to act diligently and file its pleadings within a reasonable time. we direct the government to file counter/reply statement to the original applications, if not already filed, within a period of two weeks from today before the learned tribunal. the learned tribunal shall hear and dispose of the original applications within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.5. with the above directions and without disturbing (sic) interim order passed by the learned tribunal, the writ petition shall stand disposed of with no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.R. Nayak, J.

1. What arises for decision is whether the Municipal employees could be appointed to the posts of Deputy Executive Engineers in the Department of A.P. Public Health by way of direct recruitment or not.

2. On this legal issue, there is no direct pronouncement of this Court or the Supreme Court though there is a decision of this Court handed down in W.P.No. 23668 of 2002 dated 10-12-2001 that no Municipal employee can be appointed to the posts of Deputy Executive Engineers in the Department of A.P. Public Health by way of promotion. This question has to be dealt with and answered by the learned Tribunal while disposing of the Original Applications. What is assailed in the present writ petition is the order made by the learned Tribunal vacating the earlier interim order of status quo dated 16-4-2002 and granting liberty to the respondents to effect promotions to the posts of Deputy Executive Engineers based on the rules and other instructions of the Government in the matter of filling up of the posts of Deputy Executive Engineers.

3. We have perused the order of the learned Tribunal. It was submitted before the learned Tribunal on behalf of the respondent/Government that the A.P. Public Health Department was facing hardship due to stalling of all promotions to the posts of Deputy Executive Engineers. The Courts have repeatedly held and reiterated that in service matters if the interim order granted by the Court or the Tribunal tends to stall the smooth functioning of the administration, such interim order should be avoided, obviously, because, by granting such interim order the public administration cannot be reduced to a standstill and such a situation would not be in the public interest. Looking from that angle, we do not think it appropriate for this Court to step in under Article 226 of the Constitution and upset the interim order made by the learned Tribunal in its discretion. On the other hand, we think that interest of the petitioner and similarly circumstanced persons would be safeguarded by directing that the promotions that may be made by the respondents to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in the department of A.P. Public Health would be subject to the final result of the original Applications pending before the learned Tribunal and further directing the learned Tribunal to hear and dispose of the Original Applications within a time frame.

4. It is brought to our notice as well as it is reflected in the impugned order of the learned Tribunal that no counter was filed on behalf of the Government despite granting a fair number of adjournments at their instance. This conduct of the Government cannot be countenanced. In a matter like this, the Government is expected to act diligently and file its pleadings within a reasonable time. We direct the Government to file counter/reply statement to the Original Applications, if not already filed, within a period of two weeks from today before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal shall hear and dispose of the Original Applications within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. With the above directions and without disturbing (SIC) interim order passed by the learned Tribunal, the writ petition shall stand disposed of with no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial