The full bench of the AP Administrative Tribunal on Monday upheld the decision of the state government to repatriate 20,000 employees of different cadres under the jobs-for-locals GO Ms No. 610. The tribunal dismissed a batch of petitions filed by some employees, challenging their repatriation from Telangana and Hyderabad to their native zones.
The tribunal ruled that GO 610, dated December 13, 1985, and GO Ms No. 674 of September 7, 2007, and the repatriation orders passed by the state government, do not violate any provision of the Presidential Order in 1975, as stated by the petitioners. The bench, comprising Justice Dr Yethirajulu, chairman, Mr Sudhender Kulkarni, member (judicial), and Deepak Kumar Panwar, member (administration), declared that repatriation orders do not amount to tinkering with the ranking assigned by selecting bodies such as the AP Public Service Commission. It said right of promotion was not a vested right.
The state government had issued GO 610 based on the representation of the Telangana Non-Gazetted Officers’ Union that certain allotments have been made in violation of the provisions of the Presidential Order. GO 610 was issued to identify the discrepancies, and GO 674 to rectify the violations.
GO 610 designed to identify discrepancies
Government Order 610 was issued to identify the discrepancies, and GO 674 to rectify the violations.
Thereafter, respective departments issued GOs repatriating the persons who were appointed in excess of their quota. The petitioners challenged their repatriation by invoking the provisions of para-5(2)(c) of the Presidential Order. The petitioners contended that GO 610 was contrary to Sub-Para-4, 5 and 6 of Paragraph-4 of the Presidential Order.
They said that the GO was intended to review allotments of persons holding the posts as on the date of issuance of the Presidential Order — October 18, 1975 — and it was not in operation now since the last date for revision of appointments was June 30, 1986. The main contention of the applicants was that repatriation would have an adverse affect on their promotional prospects.
The bench observed that invoking paragraph-5 of the Presidential Order need not be preceded by any notice or observance of principles of natural justice. The tribunal ruled that the amendments issued by way of substitution as per GO Ms No. 8 dated January 1, 2002 and GO Ms No. 124 dated March 7, 2002 are retrospective in operation.