IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

WRIT PETITION No.18986 of 2024

Between:

K.VICTOR PAUL, S/O LATE LUKARAJU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

OCC: SENIOR ASSISTANT, R/O CHATLAVADA VILLAGE,

MAREDUMILLIMANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT,

ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AND 13 OTHERS

...PETITIONERS

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAL BUILDINGS,

VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT AND THREE OTHERS.

...RESPONDENTS.

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 21.01.2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of order may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to

see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No

___________________________

JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

Page 2 of 16

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

+ WRIT PETITION No.18986 of 2024

% 21.01.2025

WRIT PETITION No.18986 of 2024

Between:

K.VICTOR PAUL, S/O LATE LUKARAJU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

OCC: SENIOR ASSISTANT, R/O CHATLAVADA VILLAGE,

MAREDUMILLIMANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT,

ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AND 13 OTHERS

...PETITIONERS

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAL BUILDINGS,

VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT AND THREE OTHERS.

...RESPONDENTS.

! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri M.K.Raj Kumar

^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri G.Raju, GP for Services-I

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1) (2003) 11 SCC 519

2) (2004) 5 SCC 568 : AIR 2004 SC 1794

3) (2010) 9 SCC 496

This Court made the following:

Page 3 of 16

APHC010374772024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3331]

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION NO: 18986/2024

Between:

K Victor Paul and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. M K RAJ KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I

The Court made the following:

ORDER

Petitioners, 14 in number filed the above writ petition, impugning

the proceedings issued by the 2

nd

respondent vide Ref.Admin.2/e-

37541/2024, dated 19.08.2024 (Ex.P1), whereby reverting them as

Village Revenue Officers (Grade-I), as illegal, arbitrary and violative of

G.O.Ms.No.225 General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated

18.05.1999.

Page 4 of 16

2. The 1

st

petitioner deposed to the affidavit on behalf of the other

petitioners. Brief facts, are that the petitioners were appointed Village

Revenue Officers on 08.02.2007 in the respondents' offices 2 to 4. The

petitioners and others were promoted to the cadre of Senior Assistants

vide Ref:A6/21/2022 dated 21.02.2022 subject to certain conditions, i.e.,

passing departmental tests. After promotion, the petitioners passed some

tests conducted by the 2

nd

respondent. The petitioners could not pass the

“Proficiency in automation with the usage of Computer and Associated

Software” test. Some of the petitioners could not pass the survey test.

All the petitioners crossed 45 years and hence, are exempted from

passing tests prescribed in the special Rules, as per G.O.Ms.No.225,

dated 18.05.1999. The petitioners made a representation dated

12.07.2024 to the show cause notice issued by the 2

nd

respondent dated

09.07.2024 explaining the reasons and requesting time by one year to

complete the exams. However, the 2

nd

respondent without considering

the same, issued the proceedings impugned. Hence, the writ petition.

3. An additional affidavit was filed by way of I.A.No.2 of 2024. In

Paragraph 10 of the additional affidavit, in the tabular form, it was

mentioned about tests passed and the tests yet to be passed by them.

4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 2

nd

respondent. It was

contended, interalia, that there was no promotion channel available to

Village Revenue Officers (VROs) either to Junior Assistant Cadre or to

Senior Assistant Cadre. The VRO post is not a feeder category post to

any of the posts in the Revenue Department. The Government has

taken a policy decision vide G.O.Ms.No.154 Revenue (Services-III)

Department dated 05.07.2021 and created a promotion channel from the

category of VROs (Grade-I) as Senior Assistants with certain conditions.

Page 5 of 16

Out of 47 VROs (Grade-I) promoted to the cadre of Senior Assistant on a

conditional basis, 17 VROs (Grade-I) have not passed all the required

departmental tests even after the lapse of two years. The APPSC

conducts the “Proficiency in automation with usage of Computer and

Associated Software” test regularly. The Survey Training test was also

conducted by the Survey Training Academy. The writ petitioners along

with others were considered for promotion, since they have degree

qualifications, ignoring the seniors, who do not have degree

qualifications. G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 18.05.1999 does not apply to the

petitioners and eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Heard Sri V.Maheswara Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri

M.K.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri G.Raju, learned

Government Pleader for Services for respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order

impugned does not contain reasons. Imposing the conditions qua

passing of departmental while promoting the petitioners, in terms of

G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 05.07.2021, is unreasonable and contrary to

G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 18.05.1999. The authorities, at the most, can

postpone the increment without reverting the petitioners. A channel was

created for the first time vide G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 05.07.2021 for

promoting the Village Revenue Officers (Grade-I) to the cadre of Senior

Assistant.

7. Per contra, Sri G.Raju, learned Government Pleader for Services

for respondents would submit that the petitioners were promoted to the

post of Senior Assistant in terms of G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 05.07.2021

with certain conditions. Having availed the benefit, the petitioners cannot

plead that the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 05.07.2021 are

Page 6 of 16

unreasonable. He also would submit that the petitioners cannot

approbate and reprobate. The tests prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.154 dated

05.07.2021 are not new tests prescribed for the first time and they were

already prescribed in A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, 1998 and eventually

prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

8. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the proceedings impugned vide Ref.Admin.2/e-

37541/2024, dated 19.08.2024 (Ex.P1) is legally

sustainable?

9. As narrated supra, there is no dispute regarding the petitioners'

appointment as Village Revenue Officers and thereafter promotion to the

cadre of Senior Assistant from Village Revenue Officers (Grade-I) vide

Ref:A6/21/2022 dated 21.02.2022. The promotions of the petitioners and

others were affected, in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.154 Revenue

(Services-III) Department dated 05.07.2021.

10. The post of Village Revenue Officer, initially, is not a feeder

category to the post of Senior Assistant before the issuance of

G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 05.07.2021. However, by G.O.Ms.No.186,

Revenue (VA) Department, dated 04.03.2010, orders were issued to

include the Village Revenue Officers drawing Junior Assistant scale of

pay as one of the feeder categories for the post of Senior Assistant in

Revenue Department by suitably amending the Andhra Pradesh

Ministerial Service Rules, 1998, nevertheless, such an amendment would

cease to exist after all the village revenue officers drawing junior

assistant pay scale are exhausted. Another G.O.Ms.No.25, General

Administration (Ser.B) Department dated 19.01.2011 was issued to the

Page 7 of 16

same effect. Thus, the amendments made, before G.O.Ms.No. 154 dated

5-7-2021, for a limited purpose to promote Village Revenue Officers,

drawing junior assistant pay scale, are exhausted.

11. Be that as it may, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

has submitted proposals vide Ref No.Ser.IV(1)/875/2009 dated

11.09.2018 stating that based upon the amendments issued to the

Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules, 1998 promotions have been

effected to all the VROs who are drawing Junior Assistant scale of pay to

the cadre of Senior Assistant; that there are few VROs who worked as

Panchayat Secretaries and drawing Junior Assistant scale without giving

promotion to the Senior Assistant cadre as per G.O.Ms.No.514, Revenue

(VA) Department dated 13.08.2012; that this channel would be ceased

once VROs are promoted to the Senior Assistant cadre in the State; that

there is no promotion channel available to the VROs either to Junior

Assistant cadre or to Senior Assistant cadre. However, the VRO post is

not a feeder category post to the Junior Assistant/Senior Assistant posts

in the Revenue Department and thus, requested to take a policy

decision.

12. Thereafter, the Government issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.514,

Revenue (VA) Department dated 13.08.2012 fixing the ratio of 60:40

between the Junior Assistants/Typists working in the Revenue

Department at the District level and Village Revenue Officers drawing the

Junior Assistants scale of pay, for promotion to the post of Senior

Assistant in Revenue Department at the District level in the cycle of

rotation. Thus, for the first time, for the post of Senior Assistant, the

Village Revenue Officer, Gr-I was made as one of the feeder categories.

Of course, certain conditions were also imposed.

Page 8 of 16

13. Before the above G.O., the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.132

Revenue (Ser.III) Department dated 08.05.2020 providing a promotion

channel for VROs (Grade-I) to the post of Senior Assistant by fixing the

ratio as 60:40 between the Junior Assistants and VRO (Grade -I)

respectively, with a condition that VRO (Grade-I) should work in the office

of Tahsildar for a minimum period of two years as Junior Assistant and

must pass certain qualification i.e. one should possess degree

qualification on par with Junior Assistant; one must complete five years

of service; the VRO (Grade-I) should have passed all the Departmental

tests prescribed for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant on par with

Junior Assistant as per the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, 1998; He/She

must have passed the “Proficiency in automation with the usage of

Computer and Associated Software” test conducted by the APPSC.

14. Thereafter, the Government after careful examination of the entire

issue in supersession of G.O.Ms.No.132 dated 08.05.2020 issued

G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 05.07.2021, with the following terms and

conditions:

I. Qualification:- The VRO (Grade-I) should possess a Degree qualification

on par with Junior Assistant as amended in G.O.Ms.No.135, General

Administration (Ser.B) Department dated 12.05.2014 for promotion to the

post of Senior Assistant.

II. Minimum service: He must have put in not less than five (5) years of

regular service in the present post i.e., VRO Gr-I, for promotion to the post

of Senior Assistant.

III. Ratio & Rotation: A ratio of 60:40 between the Junior Assistants /

Typists working in the Revenue Department at the District level and Village

Revenue Offers (Grade-I), with the following cycle of rotation:

Page 9 of 16

2

nd

vacancy; 5

th

vacancy; 7

th

vacancy and 10

th

vacancy is provided to

the Village Revenue Offer (Gr-1).

IV. Training & Regularization of Service.

(a) The VRO (Gr-I) on promotion as Senior Assistant should

work first (2) years in O/o the Tahsildar/RDO/Collectorate as Senior

Assistant to get acquaintance with drafting and noting. During this period

they shall not be deputed to field work as Revenue Inspector.

(b) The VRO (Gr-I) on promotion as Senior Assistant shall Pass

all the Departmental tests prescribed for promotion to the post of Senior

Assistant on par with Junior Assistant viz;

(i) Revenue Tests – 1,2,3

(ii) Survey Training for (42) days,

(iii) Crop Sampling and

(iv) Accounts Test for Subordinate Offers Part I

(c) The VRO (Gr-I) on promotion as Senior Assistant shall pass the

"Proficiency in Automation with usage of Computer and Associated

Software’ Departmental Test conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Public

Service Commission.”

The services will be regularized and seniority will be fixed in the category of

Senior Assistant only on fulfilling above (3) conditions. If any of the above

tests/training are not passed/completed within two (2) years they shall be

reverted to the post of VRO without assigning any prior notice.”

15. Thus, to get promoted to the post of Senior Assistant, the VRO

(Grade-I) should possess a degree and must have completed five years

of service. The VRO (Grade-I), after promotion, shall pass departmental

tests prescribed for promotion to the cadre of Senior Assistants on par

with Junior Assistants as per A.P. Ministerial Service Rules,1998.

16. The petitioners and others, totalling 47 in number were promoted

to the cadre of Senior Assistant on condition to fulfilling Clause No.8 (IV)

(a, b & c) of the G.O.Ms.NO.154 dated 05.07.2021. It was set out in the

Page 10 of 16

said G.O. that if any of the tests are not passed/completed within two

years, the promotees shall be reverted to the post of VRO without issuing

any prior notice. Out of 47 Seniors Assistants from VROs, 17 VROs

have not passed the required departmental tests and thus, a show cause

notice was issued and after considering the explanation submitted by

them, the proceedings impugned were issued.

17. It is pertinent to mention here that the Government issued

G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 18.05.1999 exempting, the Government

employees, who crossed 45 years of age from passing departmental

tests prescribed in the Special Rules/Adhoc Rules for promotion to the

next higher category if they could not get one promotion even after their

initial appointment. When the Chief Commissioner of Land

Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad issued a clarification stating

that passing of Revenue Survey Training, which is a technical

qualification shall not be exempted as per G.O.Ms.No.225 dated

18.05.1999 for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant from the feeder

category, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.391 Revenue (Ser.III)

Department dated 19.10.2015 exempting the employees who have

crossed 45 years of age from passing/completion of Survey Training

(Technical qualification) for getting first promotion to the post of Senior

Assistant from the category of Junior Assistant/Typist etc. It was further

clarified that those employees shall remain as Senior Assistant as

Ministerial staff till the end of their service in relaxation of Rules and they

shall not be eligible for training for the post of Revenue Inspector.

18. The G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 18.05.1999 was issued by the State

Government as per the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India

making an ad-hoc Rule, wherein exemption granted to the employees

Page 11 of 16

who have crossed 45 years from passing departmental tests starts with a

non-obstante clause. The proviso to the ad-hoc Rule, which is relevant is

extracted below:

Provided further that the exemption is applicable in case of Departmental

Tests or Special Tests only, where they are prescribed as a pre-requisite

for promotion and this exemption shall not be applicable where like

technical or academic qualifications are prescribed for promotion to the

next higher category of posts.

19. In respect of technical qualification i.e. completion of Survey

Training, it was clarified in G.O.Ms.No.391 dated 19.10.2015 that

completion of Survey Training for getting promotion, the employees who

have crossed 45 years of age are exempted. Thus, even before

G.O.Ms.No. 154 dated 05-07-2021 came into effect the rule regarding

the passing of tests qua employees above 45 years was clarified and it

was made clear that the employees above 45 years are exempted.

Having exempted the employees who crossed 45 years from the

departmental tests, whether reverting the petitioners is permissible?

20. The contention of the learned Government Pleader for Services

that the petitioners were promoted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.154 dated

05.07.2021 is not in dispute. However, the said G.O.Ms.No.154 dated

05.07.2021 was issued, as per Article 162 of the Constitution of India,

whereas G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 18.05.1999 was issued in exercise of

proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The condition in

G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 05.07.2021, the VRO (Grade-I) on promotion, shall

pass all the departmental tests prescribed i.e. Revenue Tests – 1, 2, 3;

Survey Training for (42) days, Crop Sampling, Accounts Test for

Subordinate Offers Part I and "Proficiency in Automation with usage of

Computer and Associated Software’ Departmental Test conducted by

Page 12 of 16

APPSC, may not apply to the case at hand, since all the petitioners

crossed 45 years of age at the time of promotion to the cadre of Senior

Assistant. Whether imposing such a condition in G.O.Ms.No.154 dated

05.07.2021 is against the letter and spirit of G.O.Ms.No.225 dated

18.05.1999 will be examined in an appropriate case.

21. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that the

petitioners cannot approbate and reprobate may not apply to the facts

and circumstances of the case, all the petitioners crossed 45 years by

the date of their promotion. It is a settled principle of law that a

Government order issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India

will not prevail over a Rule made under proviso to Article 309 of the

Constitution of India. When the other feeder categories of employees to

the Senior Assistant are exempted from passing departmental tests,

crossed 45 years, the petitioners who crossed 45 years are also

exempted from passing the departmental tests.

22. The 2

nd

respondent despite the reply submitted by the petitioners

to the show cause notice, failed to consider the effect of G.O.Ms.No.225

dated 18.05.1999 and clarification issued by G.O.Ms.No.391 dated

19.10.2015 to the employees who have crossed 45 years of age qua

passing of departmental tests.

23. Time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that reason is

the heartbeat of every conclusion. The reason introduces clarity in an

order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute

subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons, renders the order

indefensible/unsustainable, particularly when the order is subject to

Page 13 of 16

further challenge before a higher forum. Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of

Bihar

1

.

24. Giving reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial

and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and it is the only

indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken,

as well the fact that the Court concerned had applied its mind. State of

Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar

2

.

25. In Kranthi Associates Private Limited and another Vs. Masood

Ahmed Khan and others

3

, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized qua the

reasons in an order as follow:

“47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons,

even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone

prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its

conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider

principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to

be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any

possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even

administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the

decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous

considerations.

1

(2003) 11 SCC 519

2

(2004) 5 SCC 568 : AIR 2004 SC 1794

3

(2010) 9 SCC 496

Page 14 of 16

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of

a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by

judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior

Courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of

law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based

on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making

justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as

different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these

decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason

that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is

important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial

accountability and transparency.

(k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough

about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know

whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to

principles of incrementalism.

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and

succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be

equated with a valid decision making process.

(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of

restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not

only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also

makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of

Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the

broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now

virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of

Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain, (1994) 19 EHRR 553,

at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405,

Page 15 of 16

wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human

Rights which requires,

"adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial

decisions".

(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in

setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law,

requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is

virtually a part of "Due Process".

26. Given the discussion made supra, since the petitioners crossed 45

years by the date of promotion, the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.154 dated

05.07.2021 regarding Training & Regularization of Service, in the opinion

of this Court do not apply to the petitioners. This court should not be

oblivious to the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.225 General Administration

(SER.C) Department, dated 18.05.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.391 dated

19.10.2015. This Court is of the view that there cannot be discrimination

in the feeder category employees who crossed 45 years to the post of

Senior Assistant. As observed supra, all the petitioners, by the date of

their promotion, crossed 45 years of age. The petitioners possessed

degree qualifications and hence they were considered for promotion by

excluding seniors, who did not have degree qualifications. The authority

failed to consider all these aspects, including reasons, and passed the

order impugned and hence the same is liable to be set aside.

27. Accordingly, the proceedings issued by the 2

nd

respondent vide

Ref.Admin.2/e-37541/2024, dated 19.08.2024 (Ex.P1) is set aside. Since

some of the VROs promoted to Senior Assistants qualified in

departmental tests, and the petitioners failed to qualify for the tests, this

order will not preclude the respondent authorities from passing

appropriate orders keeping clarifications in G.O.Ms.No.225 dated

Page 16 of 16

18.05.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.391 dated 19.10.2015 and the Rules in

vogue.

28. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is Allowed. No order as

to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

___________________________

JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

Note: LR Copy to be marked

B/O

PVD