ONE MAN COMMISSION-SIX POINT FORMULA-ANDHRA PRADESH-HEADED BY Mr. J.M. GIRGLANI, IAS (Retd.) Vol II

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ONE MAN COMMISSION

(SIX POINT FORMULA)
J.M. GIRGLANI, IAS (Retd.)
FINAL REPORT
IN THREE VOLUMES
ON
IMPLEMENTATION OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDER

ON PUBLIC SERVICES, 1975
AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF G.O.Ms.No.610,
G.A.( SPF.A) DEPT., DATED 30-12-1985.
VOLUME – II
APPENDICES, ANNEXURES AND PROCEEDINGS

UP TO 22nd SEPTEMBER 2004.
One Man Commission (SPF) 2 Final Report
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SPF) DEPARTMENT
FINAL REPORT
VOLUME – II
APPENDICES 5-25 Pages
ANNEXURES 26-84 Pages
PROCEEDINGS 85-243 Pages

APPENDICES
APPENDICES
INDEX
No Appendix Page Nos.
I G.O.Ms.No.610, G.A(SPF-A) Dept.,Dt.30.12.1985 5-7
II G.O.Ms.No.270,G.A(SPF-A) Dept., Dt.25.06.2001 8-9
III G.O.Ms.No.327,G.A(SPF-A) Dept., Dt.22.07.2002 10
IV G.O.Rt.No.2755,G.A(SPF-A) Dept.,Dt.17.06.2003 11-12
V Statistics on Transfers 13
VI One Man Commission Letter No.06/86/OMC(A1)/

2002-1, Dt.01.11.2002 addressed to
Secretary (Services), G.A.D. 14-17
VII Note from Secretary (Services),G.A.D addressed

to Chairman, Anomalies Commission 18
VIII One Man Commission D.O.Lr.No.6169/OMC/A/

2001, Dt.26.10.2002 addressed to
Secretary (Services), G.A.D. 19-22
IX Government of India, Gazette No.902, New Delhi,

Dt.13.12.2001 23-24
X Statistics on Compassionate Appointments 25
XI Statistics on pending Applications for

Compassionate Appointments 25
XII Statistics on 10 (a) (i) Appointments 25
XII-A Statistics on Deputations 25
XII-B Statistics on „State Level Institutions‟ 25

Appendix-I
ABSTRACT
SIX POINT FORMULA – Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local

Cadres & Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 – Alleged violation in the
implementation of Six Point Formula in Zones V to VI – Rectification – Order –
Issued.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SPF-A) DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms.No.610 Dated the 30-12-1985

Read the following
1. G.O.Ms.No.674, G. A. (SPF-A) Dept., dated 20-10-1975.

2. G.O.P.No.728, G. A. (SPF-A) Dept., dated 01-11-1975.
3. G.O.P.No.729, G. A. (SPF-A) Dept., dated 01-11-1975.
4. From the President, Telangana Non-Gazetted Officers Union,
letter dated 05-12-1985
***
O R D E R:
The G.O. 1st read above, which is generally known as Presidential Order contains
principles regarding Organisation of Local Cadres allotment of personnel of the
various Departments to the various local cadres, method of direct recruitment to the
various categories, inter-local cadre in transfers etc. of the employees holding those
posts. In the G.Os 2nd and 3rd read above clarificatory instructions were issued
regarding procedure for implementation of the various provisions of the Presidential
Order.
2. In accordance with the provisions of the Presidential Order, local cadres

have been organized to the various categories of posts in all Government
Departments and allotment of personnel was made as per the guidelines contained in
paragraph 4 of the said order.
3. In the representation 4th cited, the President, Telangana Non-Gazetted

Officers Union has represented that certain allotments have been made in violation
of the provisions of the Presidential Order.
4. The Government after carefully examining the issues raised in the

representation and after having wide ranging discussion with the representatives of
the Union have entered into an agreement with the Telangana Non-Gazetted Officers
Union on 07-12-1985.
5. As per the terms of agreement the following orders are issued:

(1) The employees allotted after 18-10-1975 to Zones V & VI in violation

of zonalisation of local cadres under the Six Point Formula will be
repatriated to their respective zones by 31-03-1986 by creating
supernumerary posts wherever necessary.
(2) In respect of Jurala, Srisailam Left Canal and Sriramsagar Project

Stage-II, all the staff in the Non-Gazetted categories both technical
and non-technical including Asst. Executive Engineers (formerly JEs)
coming under zonalisation of local cadres under the Presidential Order
of 1975 who were posted to the projects from outside zones V and
VI after 01-03-1983, will be retransferred to their respective zones
and posted either in existing vacancies in various Government
Establishments in those zones or in supernumerary posts where
vacancies are not available. Towards this the Government will also
move the Government of India for seeking amendment to
Government of India‟s notification G.S.R. 525(E) dated 28-06-1985
to give retrospective effect to this order with effect from 01-03-1983.
(3) (a) In respect of appeals filed against orders of allotment made under
paragraph 4 of the Presidential Order of 1975 to the competent
authority in time and where such appeals are still pending disposal,
all such cases where details are furnished by the T.N.G.Os Union or
individuals, shall be disposed of by 31-03-1986.
(b) As a result of the above exercise, consequential vacancies if

any, arising shall be filled up as per the procedure laid down under
the Presidential Order.
(4) In respect of first level Gazetted posts in certain Departments which

are outside the purview of the Presidential Order, action should be
taken to review the question of inclusion of such posts also in the
scheme of localization and the matter should be taken up with the
Government of India for suitable amendment to the said order.
(5) The posts in Institutions/Establishment notified in G.S.R. No.526 (E)

dated:18-10-1975 shall be filled up by drawing persons on tenure
basis from different local cadres on an equitable basis as per the
orders issued in the G.O. 3rd read above.
(6) The provision in Para 5(2) (c) of the Presidential Order relating to
inter-local cadre transfers shall be strictly implemented and such
transfers shall be effected only under exceptional circumstances in
public interest.
(7) Action will be initiated in the concerned departments in cases brought

to their notice regarding bogus registrations in Employment
Exchanges.
(8) On receipt of complaints, if any, made by the TNGOs Union relating to

irregular allotments of candidates particularly to Zones V and VI in
the category of Village Assistants the concerned department shall
take up the matter with the A.P. Public Service Commission and take
such measures as may be necessary to rectify the irregular

allotments made if any.
(9) The possibility of allotting persons from within the same zone/multi-
zone against non-local vacancy in a particular local cadre will be
examined in consultation with the APPSC.
(10) The T.N.G.Os Union will furnish to Government the service/

categories where for want of trained personnel, non-local candidates
are being appointed in zones V and VI so that Government can
provide training facilities in respect of such services/categories with a
view to providing adequate opportunities for recruitment and
appointment of local candidates in zones V and VI.
(11) The Departments of Secretariat shall complete the review of

appointments/promotions made under the Presidential Order as
required under Para 13 of the said order, by 30-06-1986.
(12) (a) Immediate action will be taken to finalise the Common Gradation
List in respect of Assistant Engineers (Presently Dy. E.Es) as on
01-11-1956, following the prescribed procedure under the S.R.
Act. 1956.
(b) In respect of former Junior Engineers (Presently Asst.E.Es) the

common gradation list published by the Government was
quashed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the Government
had gone in appeal to the Supreme Court. Effective measures
will be taken for the disposal of the matter before the Supreme
Court, expeditiously.
(13) The matter relating to allotment of 7 non-local personnel in the cadre

of Inspector of Local Fund Audit belonging to Zones I to IV, allotted
to Zones-V and VI against their options, will be examined by the
Department concerned keeping in view of the provisions of the
Presidential Order.
(14) The question of repatriation of 13 Deputy Executive Engineers of the

Public Health Department working in the city of Hyderabad to Zones I
to IV will be considered by the Department concerned keeping in view
the provisions of the Presidential Order.
6. The Departments of Secretariat who are concerned with the terms shall take
immediate necessary steps to implement the orders in consultation with Law/General
Administration Department, if necessary, about the legal implications/interpretation
of the provisions of the Presidential Order.
(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)
SHRAVAN KUMAR
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
To
All Secretaries to Govt.
All Departments of Secretariat
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER.
Appendix-II
ABSTRACT
ESTABLISHMENT – Six Point Formula – A.P. Public Employment (OLC & RDR) Order,
1975 – Implementations of G.O.Ms.No.610, General Administration (SPF-A)
Department dated 30-12-1985 – One Man Commission with Sri J.M. Girglani, IAS
(Retd) – Constituted – Orders – Issued.
G.O.Ms.No.270 Dated the 25th June, 2001

Read :-
G.O.Ms.No.610, General Administration (SPF-A) Department,

Dated 30-12-1985.
***
O R D E R:
Government have been receiving certain representations regarding

rectification of lapses in the implementation of Six Point Formula, in so far it relates
to the Public Services. After all Party Meeting held on
15-6-2001 and after careful consideration, the Government hereby constitute a One
Man Commission with Sri J.M. Girglani, IAS., (Retd).
2. The Commission will receive representations from Association / individuals

where the injustice is done in the implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610, General
Administration (SPF-A) Department, dated 30-12-1985 and to sort out the
anomalies. The Commission shall submit its report within 90 days.
3. The Commission will also take up further follow up action for the rectification
of defects, anomalies and irregularities, if any, and arrive at estimates of deviation
and anomalies from the Presidential Order, and also suggest remedial actions which
would include a mechanism to ensure implementation and monitoring of Six Point
Formula, during the subsequent period of its term.
4. The term of the Commission will be for a period of one year. Separate
Orders shall be issued regarding the terms and conditions of the One Man
Commission.
5. The Commission shall be provided with such staff and Secretarial assistance
as may be necessary for the proper discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
6. All Departments of Secretariat shall provide the required information and

material to the Commission.
7. The expenditure on the One Man Commission shall be debitable to the Head
of Account “2052 – Secretariat General Services - (090)
Secretariat – (04) – G.A.D. – (010) – Salaries”.
8. This order issues with the concurrence of Finance Department vide their
U.O. No.4230/FS(R&E)/2001, dated 25-6-2001.
P.V.RAO
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
To
Sri J.M. Girglani, IAS., (Retd)
H.No. 7-1-69/2
(New 640) Dharamkaram Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
All Special Chief Secretaries / Prl. Secretaries/Secretaries to Govt.
All Heads of Departments
All District Collectors
Copy to :
The Prl. Secretary to Govt. (SAR), Genl. Admn. Dept.
The Secretary to Govt. (Ser.), G.A.D.
The Secretary to Govt., Finance Department
The Secretary to Govt., Planning Department
The Secretary,A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad
All Departments of Secretariat
The Pay & Accounts Officer, Hyderabad
The Deputy Pay & Accounts Officer, Secretariat Branch, Hyderabad
The Accountant General Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
The Commissioner, Printing, Stationery, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad with a Request
to notify in the A.P. Gazette and supply 50 copies.
All Recognized Service Associations
The I & PR, Publicity Cell, Secretariat, Hyderabad
The G.A. (OP.I/OP.II/OP.III/OP.IV/SB/Claims/Spl.A/Spl.B) Dept.
The Finance Department
The P.S. to Prl. Secretary to Chief Minister
The P.S. to Chief Secretary
The P.S. to Prl. Secretary to Govt. (SAR), G.A. Dept.
The P.S. to Secertary to Govt. (Services), G.A. Dept.
The P.S. to Secretary to Govt., Finance (R&E) Dept.
SF/SC.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
Appendix-III
ABSTRACT
ESTABLISHMENT – Six Point Formula – A.P.Public Employment (OLC & RDR) Order,
(Retd) – Constituted – Orders – Issued – Extension of term of office for a period of
one year with effect from 24-06-2002 – Orders - Issued

G.O.Ms.No.327 Dated the 22-07-2002
Read the following :-
1. G.O.Ms.No.610, General Administration (SPF-A) Department,

dated 30-12-1985.
dated 25-06-2001.
3. Note, dated 28-06-2002 from the One Man Commission (SPF)
* * *
O R D E R:
In the G.O. 2nd read above, the Government have constituted a „One Man
Commission‟ with Sri J.M. Girglani, IAS (Retd.) to receive representations from
Associations, Public, individuals on injustice done in implementation of
G.O.Ms.No.610, General Administration (SPF-A) Department, dated 30-12-1985, and
to sort-out anomalies. The term of the Commission was fixed as one year i.e., 24-
06-2002. The Commission submitted its Preliminary Report to the Government on
06-10-2001. The Commission has to submit its final report and give its findings on
the representations received. The Commission in the note read above, requested the
Government to grant more time to complete its work.
2. Considering the work to be done by the „One Man Commission‟, Government

have decided to extend the term of the Commission for one more year i.e., up to 30-
06-2003 on the same terms of reference as stipulated in the G.O. 2 nd read above.
3. The expenditure on the „One Man Commission‟ shall be debitable to the Head of
Account “2052 – Secretariat General Services – (090)
Secretariat – (04) – G.A.D. – (010) – Salaries”.
4. This order issues with the concurrence of Finance Department vide their U.O.
No. 1252/156/A1/EBS1/2002, dated 17-07-2002.
D. MURALI KRISHNA, IAS.,

To PRL. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
H.No. 7-1-69/2 (New 640)
Dharamkaram Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

Copy to : All Departments of Secretariat.
//TRUE COPY// Appendix-IV

ABSTRACT
ESTABLISHMENT – Six Point Formula – A.P. Public Employment (OLC & RDR) Order,
(Retd) – Constituted – Orders – Issued – Extension of term of office for a period of
three months with effect from 01-07-2003 to
30-09-2003 – Orders - Issued
G.O.Rt.No.2755 Dated the 17-06-2003

Read the following :-

dated 30-12-1985.
2. G.O.Ms.No.270, G A (SPF-A) Department, dated 25-06-2001.
3. G.O.Rt.No.3109, G A (SPF-A) Department, dated 18-07-2001.
6. G.O.Ms.No.874, G A (SC-F) Department, dated 19-02-2003.
7. Govt.Memo.No.29734/SPF.A/2002-3, G.A.(SPF.A) Department
dated 29-04-2003.
* * *
O R D E R:
In continuation of the orders issued in G.O. 5th read above, Government

hereby decided to extend the term of office of Sri J.M. Girglani, IAS., (Retd.) as One
Man Commission (Six Point Formula) for a further period of three months with effect
from 30-06-2003 to 30-09-2003.
2. The period of extension will also apply to Sri P. Mohan Lal, Ex-Officio Joint
Secretary and OSD to the Commission on contract basis. The Secretarial assistance
provided to the Commission will also be continued till 30-09-2003.
3. Permission is also extended to hire the private vehicles as ordered in Govt.

Memo 7th read above up to 30-09-2003 within the general budget allotted to the
General Administration Department pending provision of additional budget.
4. The expenditure on the „One Man Commission‟ shall be debitable to the Head of
Account “2052 – Secretariat General Services – (090)
Secretariat – (04) – G.A.D. – (010) – Salaries and also 510 – Motor Vehicles”.
4. This order issues with the concurrence of Finance Department vide their U.O.
No. 14672/158/Expr.GAD.1/A1/2003, dated 16-06-2003.
B. ARAVINDA REDDY
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (SER)
To
H.No. 7-1-69/2 (New 640)
Dharamkaram Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
Copy to : xxxxx xxxxx
//TRUE COPY//
PLEASE SEE THE STATEMENTS OF THIS

APPENDIX IN THE XLS FORMAT AT THE END
OF THE REPORT.
Appendix-VI

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
Letter No.06/86/OMC(A.1)2002-1, Dt : 01-11-2002
FROM :
J.M. GIRGLANI, IAS, (Retd.)
One Man Commission (SPF)
General Administration Department
„K‟ Block, 2nd Floor, Room No. 327
A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad
To
The Secretary to Government
General Administration (Services) Department
A.P. Secretariat
Hyderabad
Sir,
Sub : SPF – Presidential Order (OMC) – Gazetting of posts after the issue of
Presidential Order - Reg.
Ref : OMC (SPF) Preliminary Report submitted to the Government in October,

2001.
* * *
Kindly refer Commission‟s Preliminary report, Preliminary Finding Nos. 12A to
12D with particular reference to sub-Para (ii) of Para 2.28.0 of the Preliminary
Finding 12A (xerox copy of the finding is enclosed for ready reference). After this
Report, the Commission has had occasion to hold meetings with the Officers of the
Heads of the Departments to find out about the deviations if any from the
Presidential Order. One of the most important issues that has come to the notice of
the Commission is that in many departments the posts which were hitherto Non-
gazetted before 18-10-1975, the date of the Presidential Order, have been made
Gazetted either with the same designation or with some change of designation. As
Non-Gazetted posts these were zonal posts with 70% preference for local
candidates. On becoming Gazetted, the posts become State-wide posts and also
lose the preference for the local candidates. Thus, through this process the
Presidential Order is getting diluted in respect of many important posts at the zonal
level and local candidates of all the zones are losing the advantage of localisation
and preference. Apart from the posts that have come to the notice of this
Commission, the Commission understands that there is a demand from many
Service Associations for Gazetting some of their posts and that these demands have
been referred to Anomalies Commission for examination. The Anomalies
Commission will no doubt examine the administrative and other aspects of the
demands for making the posts Gazetted. But the one aspect that needs to be
safeguarded is that when a post is Gazetted or any change is made in a post, its
original local character should be preserved so that the Presidential Order is not
diluted and local candidates‟ interests are not adversely affected. It is found that
some of the posts which were gazetted after 18-10-1975 were got included by the
Government in the Third Schedule of the Presidential Order in the category of
Specified Gazetted Posts. One finds from the Third Schedule that even up to 1993
some posts were added to this category, but not all the posts that have been
gazetted to-date have been added to this category.
Adding to the Third Schedule of Presidential Order under the category of

Specified Gazetted Posts only preserves the zonal character of the post, but that
brings no solace to the local candidates because the preference for local candidates
does not apply to all the posts which are included in this category excepting for a
few posts like Tahsildars and Assistant Engineers etc., in this Schedule which were
originally given the preference of 60% for local candidates. Thus inclusion to this
category also does not restore the local candidate preference of 70% which is lost
when a Non-Gazetted post is Gazetted. In many of the cases that have come before
the Commission, the posts have not even been brought to the Specified Gazetted
Category after being gazetted so that even the zonal character is lost. In two cases:
one of the Forest Range Officer in the Forest Department and another of Prohibition
and Excise Inspectors, the proposal for inclusion in the Third Schedule as Specified
Gazetted Category Posts was even rejected by the Government of India. On the
latter case this Commission has written to you already.
This process of gazetting is resulting in consequences which are against the

principle enunciated in the Preliminary Findings cited above. You may kindly recall
that this particular finding had found favour with the Cabinet Sub-Committee in the
presence of the Hon‟ble Chief Minister, who had also agreed with it in principle. This
was also presented before the Cabinet. It is therefore more or less an agreed
principle. The reason for the recommendations in these findings cited above is that
if we do not accept the principle of immutability of the local character of the posts as
it stood at the time of the Presidential Order, then the Government would find it
difficult to deny the demands for expanding the scope of the Presidential Order in so
many other dimensions. This is one of the demands in the G.O.Ms.No.610. It will
be found in G.O.Ms.No.610, one of the demand which the Government had agreed
to look into was Para 5(5) and 5(9) which reads as under:
Para 5(5)
The posts in Institutions/Establishment notified in G.S.R.No.526(E), dated
18-10-1975 shall be filled up by drawing persons on tenure basis from
different local cadres on an equitable basis as per orders issued in the G.O.
3rd read above.
Para 5(9)
The possibility of allotting persons from within the same zone/multi-zone
against non-local vacancy in a particular cadre will be examined in
consultation with the APPSC.
Thereafter, the Services Associations particularly of Telangana have also

made demands for extending the Presidential Order to Corporations and other quasi-
government organisations which are now outside the Presidential Order. To put
finality to the scope of the Presidential Order this Commission had suggested that
we should also accept to put a stop to the abridgement of the scope of the
Presidential Order and give an assurance to the Employees Association to this effect,
while not expanding its scope.
The abridgement of the Presidential Order and the leakage of localized posts
through this process of gazetting is against the principle that the Presidential Order‟s
scope shall not be mutated i.e., neither expanded nor abridged. If it is allowed to be
abridged then the counter demands for expansion of the scope cannot be easily
ignored.
In pursuance of this principle of immutability of the local character of a

post as it stood on the date of the Presidential Order the Government have taken
care to ensure that the posts of the Secondary Grade Teachers were retained as
district cadre posts and later on the Government took further action to ensure that
the original 80% preference for local candidates was also restored even though the
scale of the post had been raised by the 1994 Pay Revision Commission above the
level of the LDC Scales, which would normally have made it a zonal post with 70%
preference. Having accepted the principle of immutability and applied it in the case
of the Secondary Grade Teachers it is but fair that the same principle be applied
wherever there is any administrative action or change that mutates the original local
character of a post. This will give finality and stability to the Presidential Order
amidst the dynamics of a progressive and expanding administrative system.
In pursuance of this principle and in view of the dimensions mentioned

above, it is suggested as under :-
1. That all the posts that were gazetted after 18-10-1975 should be got
included in the Third Schedule to the Presidential Order as Specified
Gazetted Categories. This will ensure the zonal character of the posts and
retain the zone as “local area” for the posts.
2. To retain the 70% preference for the local candidates which applied to these
posts before being Gazetted as they were Non-Gazetted zonal posts.
3. In respect of the posts which are pending consideration for being gazetted,
if the Gazetted status is granted on administrative grounds then „ipso facto‟
a reference to the Government of India may be made immediately on the
lines mentioned above under (1) and (2) so that their local character is not
mutated.
4. In cases which were referred to the Government of India and have been
rejected for inclusion in the Third Schedule i.e., Specified Gazetted
Category, the cases may be reopened and action taken as suggested at (1)
and (2) above.
A list of the posts that have come to the notice of the Commission which have
been Gazetted with or without changes in designation after the Presidential Order is
enclosed. This list is not exhaustive but information may be collected from all the
departments so that in one single reference Government of India‟s orders may be
obtained. (Please see Annexure-3 herein).
It is also suggested that the action on this matter may be taken expeditiously
particularly in view of the pending demands for gazetting of some posts in some of
the departments.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copy to
(1) Sri S.V. Prasad, IAS, Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, with reference to
personal discussion in the matter.
(2) OMC(SPF-A), GAD with a request to include this under the category of General
issues of Gazetting of posts after the issue of Presidential Order.
* * *
D.O.Lr.No.06/86/OMC(A.1)/2002-2, dt: 21.05.2003
Dear Sri Arvinda Reddy,
Sub:- SPF – Presidential Order (OMC) – Gazetting of posts after the issue of
Presidential Order – Reg.
Ref:- My Lr.No.06/86/OMC(A.1)/2002-1, dt: 01.11.2002.
***
Kindly refer my letter cited above. As I mentioned to you on phone few days
back, I understand that all the proposals for gazetting of posts submitted by various
Departments/ Associations have been referred to Anomalies Commission. I had also
mentioned this in my letter cited. This is an advanced stage of action in the matter
of deciding about the gazetting of certain posts. After the Anomalies Commission
recommendations it will be much more difficult to halt the gazetting process. As I
pointed out, it is desirable to bring this process to a halt in the interest of local
candidates under the Presidential Order who stand to suffer by gazetting of posts,
because they will lose the benefit of the local cadre and the preference in direct
recruitment to the extent of 70%. I have also proposed that in respect of the posts
already gazetted, Government of India‟s orders may be obtained so that they will
continue to be zonal posts with 70% preference for local candidates, thereby
preserving the advantage which was attached to these posts before being gazetted
on the principle of immutability of the local cadre & reservation for local candidates
of posts that existed on 18.10.1975.
In this connection, it may also be mentioned that some departments that

have got their posts gazetted after 18.10.1975 are continuing to treat them as zonal
posts with 70% for locals. While this ensures that the pre-gazetting advantage of
the post is not lost for the locals, it is in contravention of the Presidential Order
because, once the post becomes gazetted, it ceases to have the advantage under the
Presidential Order which was attached to it when it was a non-gazetted post. The
Head of the Department cannot by his own authority continue these advantages
howsoever desirable to do so. So, from that point of view also to validate their
action, it is necessary to obtain from the Government of India, orders as indicated
above, for all posts gazetted after 18.10.1975. While doing so, an immediate halt
may be ordered on any further gazetting of posts including proposals already
received or referred to Anomalies Commission.
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(J.M. GIRGLANI)
Sri B. Aravinda Reddy, IAS.,
Secretary to Government (Ser.),
General Administration (SPF) Department.
* * * Appendix-VII
Copy of:
Genl. Admn. Dept.,

O/O Secy. (services)
NOTE
It is understood that the Anomalies Commission is examining certain proposals

made from the Departments of Secretariat for up-gradation of a few non-gazetted
posts in to gazetted posts. The up-gradation of non-gazetted posts into gazetted
posts has implications under the Presidential Order, which lays down the principles of
localization and organisation of local cadres in the State.
In view of the above position, it is requested that before a decision is taken for
upgrading non-gazetted posts into gazetted posts, the views of the General
Administration (SPF-A) Department may kindly be taken into consideration.
Sd/-
Secretary (Services)
Dt. 1st May 2003
Sri R. Ramachandra, IAS, (Retd),

Chairman, Anomalies Commission.
* * *
Appendix-VIII
D.O.Lr.No.6169/OMC/A/2001- Dt.26–10-2002
Dear Sri Aravind Reddy Garu,
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Presidential Order – Posts Gazetted after the Presidential
Order –Inclusion in Specified Gazetted Category (Third Schedule) – Case
of Prohibition and Excise Inspectors – Reg.
Ref: 1. Preliminary findings no.12A, 12B, 12C, 12D in the Preliminary Report
of OMC submitted in October, 2001 (extracts enclosed for ready
reference).
2. Lr.No.78360/Excise.I/1993-22, Dt.9.10.2002 from the Revenue

Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh addressed to OMC (SPF)
(copy enclosed).
***
It may be seen from the reference 2nd cited above that the Government in the
Revenue Department had declared the post of Prohibition and Excise Inspectors as
Gazetted in G.O.Ms.No.335, Revenue (Excise-I) Department, dt.26.4.1997. In
pursuance of this the department had approached General Administration (SPF)
Department to obtain the orders of the Government of India for inclusion of the post
in the Specified Gazetted Category i.e., in The Third Schedule to the Presidential
Order, so as to maintain the zonal character of the post. From the reference 2 nd
cited, it is clear that the Government of India has rejected the proposal.
In this connection, I may invite kind attention to the Preliminary Findings of

this Commission cited above in its Preliminary Report. This Report was presented
twice before Hon‟ble Chief Minster, before the concerned Cabinet Sub-Committee on
G.O.Ms.NO.610 and also before the Cabinet. Hon‟ble Chief Minister and the Cabinet
Sub-Committee had accepted in principle these particular findings though there is no
formal order to this effect and even acted on it in the case of Secondary Grade
Teachers. In this context therefore when some posts are gazetted after the
Presidential Order, they should not lose either their zonal character or their
preference percentage (reservation percentage) for local candidates. In all such
cases the posts were Non-Gazetted before being Gazetted and were therefore zonal
posts with 70 per cent preference for local candidates. By being Gazetted, both
these localization advantages of zonal posts and 70% preference get obliterated.
Therefore, in view of the acceptance of the principle of immutability of the local
character of a post on change of designation up-gradation, gazetting etc., the case
may be referred back to the Government of India for accepting the proposal. A fresh
proposal may be sent to the Government of India for not only inclusion of the post in
the Specified Gazetted Category but also for retaining the 70 per cent preference for
local candidates.
I may, however, suggest that before sending the proposal, you may
like to discuss the matter with the Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, Sri
S.V.Prasad, IAS.. I have already discussed this issue as a general issue for all the
posts that have been Gazetted after the Presidential Order. In his view the matter
might have to be taken up with the Centre as a
general issue first at the Chief Minister‟s level. Therefore before sending the proposal
you may kindly have a word with Mr.S.V.Prasad and find out whether this single
proposal may be sent or whether we may await the general issue being taken up
first with the Government of India.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(J.M.GIRGLANI)
Sri B.ARVINDA REDDY, IAS

Secretary to Government (Services)
General Administration (SAR) Department
A.P.Secretariat
Hyderabad
Copy to Sri S.V.Prasad, IAS, Prinicipal Secretary to Chief Minister with reference to
my discussion with you on 21st October, 2002
* * *
PRELIMINARY FINDING – 12(A)

Local Character of Posts Immutable :
2.28.0 Arising from this is another anomaly that the Commission would request
the Government to kindly focus its kind urgent attention on. It is that
the character of a post as belonging to the district or zonal or multi-
zonal cadre as of 18-10-1975, the date of coming into effect of the
Presidential Order, cannot be changed by any action of any type, like
up-gradation or down-gradation etc. Thus: -
(i) If a post‟s pay scale is changed into a higher pay-scale, it will still
continue to belong to the same cadre as its original cadre as of 18-10-
1975, viz., District, Zonal or multi-zonal, as the case may be, for
purposes of “local area”. It should also continue to have the same
percentage of reservation for local candidates, 80, 70 or 60 as the case
may be as it had as of 18-10-1975.
(ii)Similarly, a post may be made gazetted, from its original non-Gazetted

status as of 18-10-1975, but that shall not take it outside the purview of
the Presidential Order, nor change its Cadre, or Local Area (Dist. Zone
or multi-zone as it was on 18-10-1975), nor can the reservation
percentage be changed from the original percentage as of 18-10-1975.
Any modification or mutation of these basic principles, even with the

consent of the Government of India, should be deemed to be violation of
the Presidential Order. The Commission has been informed of many
posts that have been gazetted after 18-10-1975, but which have not
been brought under the Presidential Order. Such as have been brought,
have been brought under changed reservation percentage to 60%, not
the original zonal non-gazetted post percentage of 70%. These
anomalies or unintended violations, whatever they may be called, need
to be set right. Their “local area” also cannot change.
PRELIMINARY FINDING – 12(B)
(iii) Where the pay-scale of a non-gazetted post is enhanced from that of

L.D.C. equivalent scale, its local area and reservation percentage should
not change. The case in point is that of Secondary School teachers.
While, on enhancement of their pay-scale their local area has been
rightly kept as the District, the percentage of reservation has been
changed to 70 from the original 80, for no explicable reason. The
contradiction and anomaly is evident „prima facie‟.
(iv) When a field office, like a regional office, is abolished and the staff is
shifted to the H.O.D Office, the posts of the field office, such as regional
office etc. so abolished, should continue to have the same character
under the Presidential Order with the same local area and local
candidate reservation percentage. The case in point is that of the
abolition of certain regional offices like those of the Cooperative
Department and shifting of the posts to Head of the Department office.

There could be more circumstances of the same genre where the same
principle will apply.
PRELIMINARY FINDING – 12(C)
2.28.1 Why are these principles sacrosanct ? Because, otherwise the entire
Presidential Order can be bled out through the haemorrhage of up-
gradations,Gazetting and upward revisions of pay scales,abolition of
field offices and shifting of their staff to the H.O.D.office or any such
acts. Mere consent of the Government of India is not an adequate
safeguard, because at this length of time, and particularly when there
is no agitation or a vigilance device for the Six Point Formula, the
Government of India would go by the State Government‟s
recommendation, which, in normal times would be based on
administrative exigencies or staff demands in general. The Six Point
Formula would not enter the thoughts of the proposers and acceptors
in the context of other stresses of the moment, be they administrative
or staff union pressures.
PRELIMINARY FINDING – 12(D)
2.28.2 Hence, the immutable spirit of the Presidential Order must be made
sacrosanct. In law it might fall under the concept of “pith and
substance”, or what the Supreme Court has pronounced as the “Basic
Framework” principle (in respect of the Constitution) which cannot be
changed by amendment. Presidential Order too is a Constitutional
Order, not a legislated one and represents a part of that fine balance
that holds together the State as a single political entity. Hence, its
„Basic Framework‟ should not be tampered with. All administrative
changes must conform to the „Basic Framework‟ of the Presidential
Order, making that framework immutable, unless by a Constitutional
amendment of the Presidential Order itself undergoes any change.
* * *
Appendix-IX
The Gazette of India

EXTRAORDINARY
Part II – Section 3 – Sub-section (ii)
Published by Authority
No.902} NEW DELHI , DECEMBER 13, 2001/AGRAHAYANA 22,1923
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

ORDER
New Delhi, the 13th December, 2001
S.O. 1219(E)-In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (1) and (2) of
article 371 D of the Constitution of India, the President hereby makes, with respect
to the State of Andhra Pradesh, the following Order to amend the Andhra Pradesh
Public Employment (Organisation of local Cadres and Regulation of Direct
Recruitment) Order, 1975, namely :-
1. (1) This order may be called the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment
(Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment
(Amendment) Order, 2001.
(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
(3) Save as otherwise provided, it shall come into force from the date of
publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and

Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975,-
(1) In paragraph 2, in sub-paragraph (1), the clause (a), the following shall be
added, namely :-
“The territorial jurisdiction in respect of the posts belonging to the

Department of school Education shall be the Revenue District of
Hyderabad”.
(2) In paragraph 8, in sub-paragraph (1) after item (b), the following item
shall be deemed to have been added with effect from the 1 st day of June
2001, namely :-
“C. (i) in any local cadre under the State Government comprising posts
belonging to the categories of teachers in the Andhra Pradesh School
Education Subordinate Service and all other similar or equivalent
categories of posts of teachers under any Department of the State
Government ; and
(ii) in any cadre under a local authority or under any such other
management, as may be notified by the State Government from time to
time carrying a scale of pay equal to that of posts in the Andhra Pradesh
School Education Subordinate Service shall be reserved in favour of local
candidates in relation to the local area in respect of such cadre”.
3. In paragraph 8, in sub-paragraph (2) in item (a) for the words and figure
“in item (a) of sub-paragraph (1)”, the words and figure “in item (a) or in
item (c) of sub-paragraph (1)”, shall be substituted.
[File No.21012/3/2001-SR]
R K SINGH, Jt. Secy.
Foot Note : The Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and
Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975, was published in the Gazette of India
vide G.S.R.No.524 (E), dated the 18th October, 1975 and amended vide :-
1. G.S.R. 850 (E) dated 18-10-1976
2. G.S.R. 78 (E) dated 22-02-1977
3. G.S.R. 186 (E) dated 16-04-1977
4. G.S.R. 392 (E) dated 22-06-1977
5. G.S.R. 648 (E) dated 17-10-1977
6. G.S.R. 5 (E) dated 01-01-1981
7. G.S.R. 525 (E) dated 28-06-1985
8. G.S.R. 1121 (E) dated 18-11-1986
9. G.S.R. 742 (E) dated 15-10-1993
10. SO 29 (E) dated 10-01-2000
11. SO 106 (E) dated 03-02-2000
* * *
PLEASE SEE THE CONTENTS OF THE

FOLLOWING STATEMENTS PERTAINING TO
APPENDIX NOS. X, XI, XII, XII-A, AND XII-B
IN THE XLS FORMAT AT THE END OF THE
REPORT
ANNEXURES
ANNEXURES
INDEX
No Annexures Page Nos.
1 ANNEXURE – List of Heads of Departments 28-30
2 Extract of High Court Judgement in W.P.Nos.13458,

13545,13558,13572,15101,19341 and 19375 of 01. 31-51
3 Posts Gazetted after the issue of Presidential Order

(18.10.1975) 52
4 Posts kept outside the purview of the APPSC 53-55
5 Posts under the purview of District Selection

Committees 56
6 APPSC, Attestation Form 57-59
7 Karnataka Act No.11 of 1974 60-71
8 Employees Census 2001 (Regular Govt. Employees) 72
9 Employees Census 2001 (Regular Rural Local Body

Employees) 72
10 Employees Census 2001 (Regular Urban Local

Body Employees) 72
11 Proforma:OMC-5A – Information on District Local

Cadre Posts 72
12 Proforma:OMC-5B – Information on District Local

Cadre Posts - (Abstract) and Tables 2A to 2E &
3A to 3D 72
13 Note on Para 5 (14) of G.O.Ms.No.610 in respect of

13 Deputy Executive Engineers of Public Health &
Municipal Engineering Department 73-74
14 G.O.Ms.No.128,M.A, Dt. 11.02.1981,

G.O.Ms.No.245,M.A, Dt.20.05.1986 and
G.O.Ms.No.77,M.A, Dt.4.03.1997 of
Housing, Municipal Administration and
Urban Development Department. 75-84
Annexure-1
PROPOSED NEW ANNEXURE

TO THE G.O.P.NO.728, G.A. (SPF.A) DEPT., Dt. 01-11-1975
LIST OF HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS

1. Commissioner of Agriculture.
2. Director of Animal Husbandry.
3. Commissioner of State Archives & Research Institute.
4. Director of Adult Education.
5. Director of State Audit.
6. Commissioner of Archaeology and Museums.
7. Commissioner for Backward Classes.
8. Director of Boilers.
9. Commissioner for Co-operation & Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
10. Commissioner Collegiate Education.
11. Commissioner of Civil Supplies.
12. Commissioner for Commercial Taxes.
13. Director of Cultural Affairs
14. Addl. Director General, Drugs Control Administration.
15. Commissioner of Disabled Welfare.
16. Director of Government Examinations.
17. Chief Electrical Inspector.
18. Director of Employment and Training.
19. Director of Economics and Statistics.
20. Commissioner of Endowments.
21. Commissioner of Fisheries.
22. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests.
23. Director General of Fire Services.
24. Director of Factories.
25. Director of Ground Water Department.
26. Director of Horticulture.
27. Director of Health.
28. Commissioner of Handlooms and Textiles.
29. Commissioner of Intermediate Education.
30. Director of Insurance.
31. Director, Information & Public Relations.
32. Director General, Dr. Marri Channa Reddy Human Resource Development
Institute (IOA).
33. Commissioner of Indian Medicine & Homeopathy.
34. Commissioner of Industries.
35. Engineer-in-Chief (Admn.Wing) Irrigation & Command Area Development.
36. Director of Insurance Medical Services.
37. Director of Jawarhar Bal Bhavan.
38. Commissioner, Juvenile Welfare & Correctional Services.
39. Director of Public Libraries & Registrar of Publications.

40. Controller of Legal Meteorology.
41. Commissioner of Labour.
42. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration.
43. Director of Marketing.
44. Director of Mines and Geology.
45. Director of Municipal Administration.
46. Director, N.C.C.
47. Director of Govt Oriental Manuscripts Library and Research Institute.
48. Director of Protocol.
49. Director of Institute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health, Lab. Food (Health)
Administration.
50. Director General & Inspector General of Police.
51. Director General & Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services.
52. Director of Prosecutions.
53. Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health.
54. Commissioner of Panchayat Raj.
55. Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj.
56. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise.
57. Director of State Ports.
58. Commissioner of Rural Development.
59. Inspector General of Registration and Stamps.
60. Engineer-In-Chief, Roads and Buildings.
61. Commissioner of Sericulture.
62. Commissioner & Director of School Education.
63. Commissioner of Small Savings & State Lottries.
64. Commissioner and Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner.
65. Commissioner of Survey Settlements, Land Records, Settlements and Jagir
Administration.
66. Director of Sainik Welfare.
67. Commissioner of Social Welfare.
68. Commissioner of Technical Education.
69. Director of A.P Govt Text Book Press.
70. Director of Treasuries and Accounts.
71. Director of Translations.
72. Director of Town and Country Planning.
73. Commissioner of Tribal Welfare.
74. Chief Engineer, Tribal Welfare.
75. Commissioner of Transport.
76. Director of Tourism.
77. Director of Works Accounts.
78. Commissioner, Women Empowerment & Self Employment.
79. Director, Women Development & Child Welfare.
80. Director of Youth Services.

81. Registrar, A.P. High Court.
82. Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority.
83. A.P Judicial Academy.
84. A.P Administrative Tribunal.
85. Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings.
86. Lok Ayuktha & Upa Lokayuktha.
87. A.P Sales Tax Appellete Tribunal.
88. Special Court under A.P Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act.
89. A.P Co-operative Tribunal.
90. A.P State Transport Appellete Tribunal.
91. A.P WAKF Tribunal.
92. Chairman Cum Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Visakhapatnam.
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Guntur.
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Warangal.
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Anantapur.
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Karimnagar.
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Hyderabad I.
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Hyderabad II.
Additional Industrial Tribunal Hyderabad.
100. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court I Hyderabad.
101. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court II Hyderabad.
102. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court III Hyderabad.
* * * * *
Note : The designations of some of Heads, change with their ranks.

Annexure-2
EXTRACTS OF HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT IN W. P. Nos. 13458, 13545,

13558, 13572, 15101, 19341 AND 19375 OF 2001
THE HON‟BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI S.B. SINHA

THE HON‟BLE SRI JUSTICE S.R. NAYAK
AND
THE HON‟BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
JUDGEMENT: (per the HON‟BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

All these Writ Petitions arising out of common order of the A.P. Administrative
Tribunal in O.A.No.2139 of 2001 and batch-dated 28-06-2001 were taken up for hearing
together and are being disposed of by this common judgement.
ISSUE
The core issue involved in these writ petitions is whether the transfer of the
Inspectors of Police to the unit of Hyderabad City Police from other zones or the transfer of
Inspectors of Police from one zone to another, as the case may be, made on
administrative grounds and in public interest was on permanent basis and consequently
they are entitled to take their respective seniority in the units to which they were
transferred and whether they can be repatriated back to their parent zones?
Preview of the relevant provisions of the Presidential Order and

consequential orders issued by the Government:
Pursuant to Six Point Formula agreed upon by various political leaders of the
State, by Constitution 32nd Amendment Act, the Parliament introduced Article 371-D for
the State of Andhra Pradesh with the object to ensure equitable opportunities in the
matter of Public Employment for persons coming from various parts of the State. In
exercise of the powers conferred by Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371-D of the
Constitution of India, the President issued the order known as Andhra Pradesh Public
Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order,
1975 (for short „the Presidential Order‟). Para 3 of the Order provides for organisation of
Local Cadres. Para 3 (2) provides that the posts belonging to the category of Junior
Assistants and to each of the other categories equivalent to, or lower than that of a Junior
Assistant in each department in each district shall be organised into separate cadre.
Under sub-Para (3), the posts belonging to each non-gazetted category, other than those
referred to in sub-paragraph (2), in each department in each zone shall be organised into
a separate cadre. As per Para 3(4), the posts belonging to each specified gazetted
category in each department in each zone shall be organised into a separate cadre. As
per Third Schedule appended to the Order, Inspectors of Police in Police Department is
a Specified Gazetted Category (S.No.51). According to Para 2(1) (m), zone means a
zone specified in the Second Schedule, comprising the territories mentioned therein. As
per the Second Schedule, Hyderabad comes under Zone VI which consists of Hyderabad,
Ranga Reddy, Nizamabad, Mahaboobnagar, Medak and Nalgonda district. Under the
Second Schedule, six zones have been created in the State for the purpose of the
Presidential Order. Para 6 deals with local areas. As per Para 6(2)(ii), the posts of
Inspectors of Police shall be regarded as a zonal post.
Under Sub-paragraph (6) of Para 3 notwithstanding anything contained in sub-

paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5), the Central Government was empowered to notify the
departments in which and the categories of posts for which a separate cadre has to be
organised for the City of Hyderabad and on such notification, the posts belonging to each
such category in each such department in the City of Hyderabad (other than those
concerned with the administration of areas falling outside the said City) shall be organised
into a separate cadre and the posts so organised shall be excluded from the other cadres,
organised in pursuance of Para 3 or constituted otherwise and comprising of posts
belonging to that category in that department. The Central Government in G.S.R. 528(E)
dated 18-10-1975 issued notification under Para 3(6) and the Police Department is not
part of such notification. Therefore the Police Department in the city is part of Zone VI
only and no separate city cadre has been constituted for any of the categories in the
Department. Para 4 of the Order deals with allotment of persons.
Now, we may refer to Para 5 and 14 of the Order which are relevant for our
purpose. Para 5, which deals with Local Cadres and transfer of persons, reads thus:
5: Local cadres and transfer of persons: (1) Each part of the State for which a local
cadre has been organised in respect of any category of posts, shall be a separate unit for
purpose of recruitment, appointment, discharge, seniority, promotion and transfer, and
such other matters as my be specified by the State Government, in respect of that
category of posts.
(2) Nothing in this Order shall prevent the State Government from making provision for-
(a) the transfer of a person from any local cadre to any office or Establishment to which
this Order does not apply, or vice-versa;
(b) the transfer of a person from a local cadre comprising posts in any Office or
Establishment exzercising territorial jurisdiction over a part of the State to any other local
cadre comprising posts in such part, or vice-versa;
(c) the transfer of a person from one local cadre to another local cadre where no qualified
or suitable person is available in the latter cadre on where such transfer is otherwise
considered necessary in the public interest; and
(d) the transfer of a person from one local cadre to another local cadre on a reciprocal
basis, subject to the condition that the person so transferred shall be assigned seniority in
the latter cadre with reference to the date of his transfer to that Cadre.
Under Para 5(1) for the purpose of recruitment, appointment, discharge, seniority,
promotion and transfer and such other matters as may be specified by the State
Government, each part of the State for which a local cadre has been organised is the Unit.
The category of Inspectors of Police is a zonal post. Therefore, zone is the unit for the
matters mentioned in Para5(1).
Under Para 14 of the Order, certain Establishments and posts are saved or exempted
from the application of the Presidential Order. Para 14(f), which is relevant for the
purpose of this case, reads thus:
Saving : Nothing in this Order shall apply to –
XXX
(f) any post of Police Officer as defined in Clause (b) of Section 3 of the Hyderabad City
Police Act, 1348F.
The President by various notifications specified the Special Offices or Establishments,

Major Development Projects and State Level Offices or Institutions for the purposes of
Para 14. In the Police Department, Police Training College, Ananthapur, Deputy Inspector
General of Police (Intelligence), Deputy Inspector General of Police (Railways, Crime and
Training), Police Transport Organisation, office of the Director Police Communication,
Office of the Forensic Science Laboratory are included in the notification. By operation of
Para 14 (f) the posts of Police Officers defined in Hyderabad City Police Act are saved from
the provisions of the Presidential Order.
Ascertained cadre strength, allotment of persons under Para 4 and unit of

appointment are, therefore, basic requirements for ensuring the object underlined under
Clause (10 of Article 371-D provides that the provisions of the Article and of any
order made by the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any
other provision of the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force. Therefore,
the Presidential Order prevails over any other law existing or made in future.
Sub-section (b) of Section 3 of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 F defines “Police
Officer” to mean every member of the City Police Force appointed under the said Act and
shall also include the Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad, Deputy or Assistant
Commissioner of Police. Section 4 of the Hyderabad City Police Act, which deals with
Organisation of Police, reads thus:
Organisation of Police: For the City of Hyderabad there shall be appointed a Police force
and its strength and constitution shall be as may be prescribed in accordance with the
orders of the government issued in this behalf, from time to time.
The State enacted an Act called the Andhra Pradesh Members of Police Force
(Regulation of Transfers) Act, 1985 (Act 9 of 1985) (for short „the Act,1985‟) to regulate
the transfer of persons appointed to Police Force in the State of Andhra Pradesh. „Police
Force‟ has been defined under sub-section (b) of section 3 of the said Act, to mean the
Police force constituted under the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 F, (the Andhra Pradesh
(Andhra Area) District Police Act, 1859) and the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) District
Police Act, 1329 F or any other law relating to police force.
Section 3, which deals with regulation of transfer read thus:
Regulation of transfer of members of police force: (1) Notwithstanding anything in any law
for time being in force, a member of the Police Force, shall be liable to serve in any part of
the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The Government may make rules for the regulation of transfer of members of Police force
from one part of the State to another part within the State of Andhra Pradesh by such
authority as may be prescribed.
Section 4 empowers the Government to make rules for carrying out the purpose of
the said Act.
The State in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-paragraph (2) of Paragraph
5 of the Presidential Order read with sub-section (2) of Section 3 and sub-section (1) of
Section 4 of the Act, 1985 issued rules in G.O.Ms.No.288, Home (Police-C) Department
dated 06-05-1986 called the rules for the regulation of transfer of members of police force
from one part of the State to another part within the State of Andhra Pradesh. The rules
shall apply to every member of the Police force from the rank of Police Constable to the
rank of Inspector and of equivalent ranks working in various police organisations. In terms
of entry No.1 of the table under Rule 2, for all ranks in Police Department, the competent
authority to effect transfer is Director General and Inspector General of Police or by an
authority authorised by him.
Rule 3 which speaks of seniority provides
Seniority: The transfers being on administrative grounds and in public interest, the
transferees will take their respective seniority in the Units to which they are transferred.
Under Rule 4 of the said Rules, the appointing authority for the transferees will be
the same as that prescribed in the concerned Special Rules relating to the Unit to which
they are transferred. Subsequent to the issuance of the Act, 1985 and the Rules,
numbers of persons working in the category of Inspectors of Police were transferred from
one zone to another on administrative grounds including the Hyderabad City. Such
transfer orders did mention that the seniority of such transferees would be maintained in
the range to which they were transferred.
The State Government made several provisions under Para 5(2)(c) of the Presidential
Order. In the G.O.Ms.No.374 GAD(SPF.A) Department dated 20-05-1977, it was
provided that no provision for inter-local cadre transfers need be made in any special or ad
hoc rules on and that such transfers will be permitted only under the circumstances
stipulated in Para 5(2)(c).
In G.O.Ms.No.569 GAD dated 22-08-1977 an ad hoc rules was issued to the

following effect:
Notwithstanding anything in the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules or the Special
or Adhoc rules transfer of a person, holding post in a category organised into local
cadre, under Para 3 of the A.P. Public Employment (Organisation of Local cadres under
regulation of direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 as amended from one local cadre to another
shall be made by the Government where no qualified or suitable person is available in the
latter cadre or where such transfer is otherwise considered necessary in the public
interest.
To give effect to Para 5(2)(d) which was inserted by G.O.Ms.No.34 GAD dated
24-01-1981, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.539 GAD dated 01-10-1981 issued the
amendment to the above ad hoc rule as under:
Notwithstanding anything in the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, or the Special
or the Ad hoc rules transfer of a person, holding post in a category organised into local
cadres, under Paragraph 3 of the A.P. Public Employment (Organisation of Local cadres
and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 as amended from one local cadre to
another may be made by the Government.
(a) Against a vacancy where no qualified or suitable person is available in the latter cadre
or where such transfer is otherwise considered necessary in the public interest; and
(b) on reciprocal basis, subject to the condition that transfers should be assigned
seniority with reference to the date of transfer in the cadre to which he is transferred.
BACKGROUND OF LITIGATION:
It appears that consequent to transfer of Inspectors of Police to Hyderabad City

Police from other zones, litigation had ensued before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal challenging the validity of the Act, 1985. The Police Officers working in the
Hyderabad City Police questioned the orders of transfer of Police Officers from other zonal
cadres to the posts of in the Hyderabad City Police. A full Bench of the Tribunal in
O.A.Nos.22622 to 635 of 1990 and batch of cases considered the validity of the Act and
the Rules.
The Tribunal on a consideration of the various provisions of the Presidential Order

and the ad hoc rules issued by the Government was of the view that the transfers of non-
gazetted officers or the first level gazetted officers occupying the posts saved by Para 14
may be made in public interest and in the interests of the administration but at the same
time, such transfers cannot be made as a punishment by posting the persons to distant
places or to effect their future careers like promotion etc. Referring to entry 1 of Rule 2 of
the Rules, the Tribunal observed :
It does not make any distinction between the posts organised in zonal cadres or covered
by the Presidential Order or those saved by the Presidential Order by Para 14. Such a
provision is not contemplated by Para 5(2) and is inconsistent with the same.
The Tribunal also observed:
the table under Rule 2 does not indicate separately the post of a Police Officer as defined
in the Hyderabad City Police Act which is saved by the Presidential Order. A transfer of
such an officer to another post covered by the Presidential Order will not be permissible
under the Act or the Rule. Rule 2 or any other rule does not refer to various clauses of
Para 5(2), which has to be kept in view for making a transfer with reference to each of the
clauses.
The Tribunal further observed:
Rule 3 regarding seniority states that a transfer could be made in public interest and
therefore Rule 2 extracted above merely states that the transfers being on administrative
grounds and in public interest the transferees will take their respective seniority in the
units to which they are transferred. The rules do not restrict the power of transfer only in
public interest or on administrative grounds. No guidelines are laid down for the
subordinate officers to make such transfer or dealt with which are the areas, which will
answer the requirements of public interest or administrative grounds. In respect of the
posts covered by the Presidential Order, the public interest is a ground only under Para
5(2)(c). The ad hoc rule framed under 309 reserves the power in the Government alone.
By the impugned rules, the power is not only delegated to the Head of the Department
and various officers but it can be further delegated by the Head of the Department to
anyone else. The words „public interest‟ and „administrative grounds‟ in Rule 3, therefore,
do not lay down any guidelines or put a fetter on the officers to transfer only in public
interest or administrative grounds.
It was further held that provision made under Para 5(2) cannot be inconsistent with
Clauses (a) to (d) of Para 5(2). However, the Tribunal did not examine the scope of
various clauses under Para 5(2) or how the posts under 14(f) are to be dealt with on the
ground that the rules do not satisfy the requirement of a provision to be made under Para
5(2). The Tribunal also held:
We would, therefore, like to point out to the instructions issued in G.O.P.No.728, GAD
dated 01-11-1975 regarding determination of cadre strength of each local cadre by taking
into account the proportionate number of posts in Office or establishments saved from the
Presidential Order. This was with an idea that the posts in such office and establishments
would generally be filled upon tenure basis by drawing persons from various zonal cadres
on equitable basis to achieve the object of Article 371-D. Probably this may also have to
be kept in view while making a provision under 5(2).
Finally, the Tribunal summed up the conclusions as under:
a) The Act and Rules do not violate Presidential Order insofar as a transfer is from a post
saved under Para 14 of the Presidential Order to another post saved under Para 14 of a
person not included in any local cadre under the Presidential Order.
b) The impugned Act and the Rules are not effective for making transfer in respect of local
cadres i.e., either inter-cadre or from or to posts in the cadre to and from posts saved
under Para 14 of the Presidential Order and for which provision is to be made by the
Government in various clauses of 5(2) or of the persons included in any local cadre under
Presidential Order.
c) It is open for the Government to make any further or other provision as contemplated
by 5(2).
It is made clear that we have examined the question of transfer from the city police to
another local cadre on a permanent basis. We have not examined transfers of police
officers bona fide in public interest in exigencies of services for short periods without
effecting their continuance and position in their local cadre or effecting their seniority in
the local cadre to which they are so transferred or levelled by the Head of Department
viz., DGP of Police. (emphasis supplied)
Therefore, according to the Tribunal no transfer from the inter-cadre posts to the
posts saved under Para 14 or vice versa is permissible unless a provision is made by the
Government under Para 5(2) and the rules do not satisfy the requirement of a provision to
that effect.
Pursuant to the Judgement of the Tribunal, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.349

Home (Police.C) Department dated 15-12-1997 the relevant portion of which reads thus:
The Government of India and the Director General and Inspector General of Police Andhra
Pradesh Hyderabad were consulted in the matter.
The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has
suggested that the table in G.O.Ms.No.288, Home Department, dated 06-05-1986has to
be suitably changed and Para 14 of the Presidential Order amended suitably in order to
effect the transfers of police officers and men in public interest.
The Government after careful examination of the entire matter direct that the transfers of
Police personnel from one local cadre to another local cadre be permitted only for a limited
period without conferring any right to seniority in the local cadre to which, the individual is
transferred even though the said transfer is on administrative grounds. Such transfer
orders have to be issued by the Government duly indicating the reasons in each case in
order to justify that the transfer is in public interest.
Pursuant to the said G.O. the Director General and Inspector General of Police sent
proposals to the Government to repatriate all the officers who are working in other zones
and the Government issued orders in G.O.Rt.No.2424 dated 25-11-1998 repatriating nine
officers to their respective parent zones. Consequential repatriation orders were also
issued by the authorities concerned.
The validity of G.O.Ms.No.349 and G.O.Rt.No.2424 was the subject-matter of

challenge before the Tribunal.
FACTS:
We may now briefly refer to the factual aspects involved in the respective Writ
Petitions with reference to the various orders issued by the authorities.
Sarvasri Sardar Harihar Singh, Y.Vijay Kumar (petitioners in W.P.No.13572 of

2001) Shaik Sharifuddin, and M.G.F. Santakumar (petitioner in W.P.No.13558 of 2001)
filed O.A.No.7579 of 1998 questioning the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.349 and consequential
orders dated 15-12-2000 issued pursuant thereto. The petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.13572
of 2001 was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in 1974 in Zone VI and he was
promoted as Inspector of Police in 1998. By the proceedings of the Special Inspector
General of Police (Admn.) dated 24-05-1988 he was transferred from Hyderabad Range
to Hyderabad City Police on administrative grounds and in public interest. The order
mentions that his seniority will be maintained in Hyderabad City Zone. The 2 nd
petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in 1976 in Zone IV and was promoted as
Inspector of Police in 1992. By the orders of the Spl. Inspector General of Police dated
16-06-1994 he was transferred to Hyderabad City Police on temporary basis on
administrative grounds and in public interest subject to the result of O.A.No.22622 of
1990 and batch. The order of the 2nd respondent mention that his seniority will be
maintained in Kurnool Zone. By G.O.Rt.No.2424 Home (Police.C) Department dated 25-
11-1998 both the petitioners were repatriated back to their parent ranges. However, they
were continuing by virtue of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.32683 of 1998
directing to maintain status quo pending disposal of O.A.No.7579 of 1998. The O.A. was,
however, disposed of as covered by the Full bench Judgement of the Tribunal dated 20-
10-1994. The petitioners challenged the same in W.P.No.5613 of 1999 wherein this Court
directed to maintain status quo on 19-03-1999. The Writ Petition was finally disposed of
on 30-01-2001 remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal and directed to
maintain status quo till the disposal of the O.A.
The petitioner in W.P.No.13558 of 2001 was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in

Zone IV in 1976 and promoted as Inspector of Police in 1982. By order dated
29-03-1995 of the Inspector General of Police (Admn.) he was transferred to Hyderabad
City on administrative grounds and in public interest and the order mention that his
seniority will be reckoned in Hyderabad city. By the order dated 25-11-1998 he was
repatriated back to his parent zone.
The petitioner in W.P.No.15101 of 2001 arising out of O.A.No.8534 of 1998 was

appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 21-04-1974 in Zone IV and later promoted as
Inspector of Police in 1982. He was transferred from Zone-IV to Zone II by proceedings
dated 02-04-1997. By the impugned orders he was repatriated back to his parent range.
The petitioner (K.Ashok Reddy) in W.P.No.13545 arising out O.A.No.8430 of 1998

was appointed as Sub-Inspector of police in Zone V in 1978 and promoted as Inspector of
Police on out of seniority in February, 1987 and on regular basis in June, 1991. By the
proceedings dated 12-02-1996 he was transferred to Hyderabad Range and at the
relevant time he was working as Inspector of Police, Saroornagar. He was one of the
persons repatriated through G.O.Rt.No.2424. He obtained orders of status quo in
O.A.No.8438 of 1998. When the Deputy Inspector General of Police issued the
consequential proceedings dated 04-01-2001 he filed O.A.No.58 of 2001 and the Tribunal
by orders dated 09-01-2001 granted interim suspension of the said orders. The said O.A.
was also tagged on O.A.No.8430 of 2001.
The petitioner in W.P.No.13458 of 2001 (G. Anantha Reddy) arising out of O.A.
No.2139 of 2001 was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in Zone VI on 01-02-1974 and
promoted as Inspector of Police on 18-07-1988. He is not aggrieved by the orders of the
Government in G.O.Ms.No.349 or G.O.Rt.No.2424. His grievance is that though by orders
dated 04-01-2001 he was posted as Inspector of Police, Saroornagar
he was not permitted to join duty. It appears that there was a dispute between the
petitioner in W.P.No.13545 of 2001 and this petitioner as to the holding of the post of
Inspector of Police, Saroornagar P.S. Pursuant to an order passed in C.A.No.1881 of 2001
the petitioner in W.P.No.13545 of 2001 was issued posting orders on 03-04-2001 at
Saroornagar and the petitioner herein was kept under reserve for want of vacancy from
01-08-2001. He challenged the same in O.A.No.2139 of 2001. The O.A. was tagged on to
O.A.No.8430 of 1998 and O.A.No.58 of 2001. These three OAs were dismissed. The
Tribunal observed that both the petitioners continued vexatious litigation with the
predominant motive of occupying the post of Inspector Police, Saroornagar P.S. and
therefore it was not desirable to allow either of them as Inspector of Police, Saroornagar
PS in public interest. Being aggrieved, he filed the present Writ Petition. According to
him, he was still kept on waiting for posting and he is not being paid salary from 03-04-
2001.
Aggrieved by the observations of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2139 of 2001 as against the
petitioner Sri Ashok Reddy, he filed W.P.No.19341 of 2001. He also filed W.P.No.19375 of
2001 challenging the proceedings dated 04-01-2001 of the Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Hyderabad Range referred to above repatriating him back to his parent zone.
The Tribunal by the order under challenge held that the transfer of the petitioners to
Hyderabad city is on temporary basis and they cannot claim permanent absorption in the
unit to which they were transferred. Rejecting the contention of the petitioners that the
Judgement of the Full Bench of the Tribunal is not binding on them, the Tribunal held that
the Judgement of the Full Bench in O.A.Nos.22622 of 1990 to 22635 of 1990 is a
judgement in rem and not judgement in personam. It was also held that the seniority of
the petitioners was being maintained in their respective police ranges only and not in
Hyderabad City Police. It was further held that Hyderabad City Police is not part and parcel
of Zone VI and is a free zone and separate independent recruitment is being made in
respect of posts of Hyderabad City Police. As regards the issue of not repatriating
similarly placed persons, it was found that such persons will be considered soon after
disposal of pending oral enquiries/ACB cases registered against them. The Tribunal also
held that the petitioners were appointed and promoted in their parent zones and therefore
they cannot have a right to be treated as regular candidates of Hyderabad City Police.
The Tribunal also held that the Tribunal in the Full Bench Judgement while upholding the
Rules read down the same instead of striking down them and the G.O.Ms.No.349 has been
issued only by way of clarification to G.O.Ms.No.288. Holding so, the Tribunal dismissed
all the applications.
Being aggrieved, the present Writ petitions were filed.
The petitioner in W.P.No.13458 of 2001 is not concerned with the transfer from one
zone to another. Expect the petitioner in W.P.No.15372 of 2001, the other petitioners
were transferred to Hyderabad City Police from other zones. The Petitioner in
W.P.No.15372 of 2001 was transferred from Zone IV to II and was repatriated back to
Zone IV pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.349.
SUBMISSIONS:
Mr. Nuty Rammohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for one of the petitioners
would submit that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering the legality and validity of
the policy decision of the State contained in G.O.Ms.No.349 and G.O.Rt.No.2424. He
would further submit that in terms of Para 3(6) of the Presidential Order no separate cadre
has been organised for the City of Hyderabad and, therefore, the State was competent to
make provision for effecting transfer from one local cadre to another local cadre in terms
of Para 5(2)(c) of the Presidential Order. The Tribunal in the Full Bench judgement upheld
the validity of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.288 and once an employee is transferred
from one local cadre to another in public interest and on administrative grounds, they
cannot be repatriated back. Rule 3 of the Rules is in conformity with the provisions
contained in Para 5(1) of the Presidential Order.
Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the petitioners were transferred to Hyderabad City Police on permanent basis and,
therefore, they cannot be repatriated back to their parent zones. The Full Bench
judgement of the Tribunal does not come in the way of the petitioners being transferred to
Hyderabad City Police and G.O.Ms.No.349 is contrary to the power vested on the State to
effect transfers under Para 5(2) of the Presidential Order and the rules issued in
G.O.Ms.No.288 are in accordance with Para 5(2). Insofar as Sub-Inspectors and
Inspectors of Police are concerned, there is no separate zone for Hyderabad City and it is
included in Zone VI only and as such inter-cadre transfers is permissible. It was further
submitted that all the posts in the Police Department are covered by the A.P. Police
Subordinate Service Rules issued in exercise of the power under Article 309 of the
Constitution and no separate recruitment is being made under the provisions of the
Hyderabad City Police Act. The Full Bench was not correct in holding that Hyderabad City
is a separate Unit. Nobody was appointed under the Hyderabad City Police Act. Learned
counsel would further submit that G.O.Ms.No.349 would operate only prospectively but not
retrospectively.
The learned Additional Advocate-General would contend that Government under Para
5(2) is empowered to make transfers in certain specified circumstances mentioned in
Clauses (a) to (d). In the Full Bench Judgement, the Tribunal read down the Rules issued
in G.O.Ms.No.288 to the extent the posts of Police Officers under Para 14(f) are
exempted. He would further urge that G.O.Ms.No.349 has been issued only by way of
clarification to G.O.Ms.No.288 dated 06-05-1986.
FINDINGS:
Section 3 of the Act 1985 begins with a non-obstante provision and renders liable a
member of the Police Force to serve in any part of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Sec.2(b)
of this Act defines a Police Force to mean the Police Force constituted under the
Hyderabad City Police Act 1348 Fasli; the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Police Act
1859 and Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) District Police Act 1329 Fasli or any other law
relating to the Police Force.
On a linguistic construction of the expressed terms of the Act 1985, there are no
apparent limits to the transferability of a member of the Police Force within the territory of
the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Having regard to the provisions of Presidential Order 1975 made under Art. 371D
of the Constitution, local cadres have been constituted and Para 5 (1) of the Presidential
Order which mandates that each part of the State, for which a local cadre has been
organised in respect of any category of posts, shall be a separate unit for the purpose,
inter alia, of transfer. Having regard to the provisions of Art. 371D(10) the Presidential
Order prevails over any provision of the Constitution or any other law for the time being in
force. In this constitutional position, while the provisions of the Act 1985 are plenary
within that sphere would nevertheless require to be construed in harmony with the
provisions of the Presidential Order. The liability of a member of the police force to be
transferred to any part of the State and the concomitant power of the State Government
to so effect a transfer is thus subject to the limitations enjoined in the Presidential Order.
The doctrine of reading down of a statute is a well recognised principle of statutory
construction. This doctrine is used either for saving a statute from being struck down on
account of unconstitutionality, resulting either from the incompetence of a Legislature to
enact a statute or from its violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution. Thus
wherever the provisions of the statute are vague, ambiguous or couched in broad
phraseology and two interpretations are possible on its terms – one which renders the
provisions constitutional and the other unconstitutional, a limiting construction can be
employed to structure the provisions of the statute, so as to bring them in conformity with
the constitution and thus rendering them intra vires – vide
In Re the Hindu Women‟s Rights to Property Act, 1937 and the Hindu Women‟s
Rights to Property (Amendment) Act, 1938 (AIR 1941 FC 72); Nalinakhya Bysack vs
Shyam Sunder Hakdar (AIR 1953 SC 148); R M D Chamarbaugwalla vs Union of India
(AIR 1957 SC 628); Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC 955); R.L. Arora
vs State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1964 SC 1230); Jagadish Pandey vs the Chancellor,
University of Bihar, (AIR 1968 SC353); Umed vs Raj Singh (AIR 1975 SC 43); Sunil Batra
vs Delhi Administration (AIR 1978 SC1675) ; Excel Works vs Union of India (AIR 1979 SC
25) and Minerva Mills Ltd., vs Union of India (AIR 1980 SC 1789).
In VIJAYALAKSHAMMA v B.T. SHANKAR1 the Apex Court has pointed out that the
Courts may not add or alter provisions of statute by reading into them what was never
intended by the legislature or may have been deliberately avoided by it. (Also See GM SC
RAILWAY, SEC‟BAD v SRI RAMA ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONS, 2001 (6) ALD 191).
The alleged uncanalised grant of power to transfer a member of the Police Force to
any part of the State of Andhra Pradesh, under the Act, 1985, must thus on principle and
authority, be read as empowering transfer only in conformity with the provisions of the
Presidential Order in particular Para 5 thereof.
An analysis of the provisions of the Presidential Order 1975, discloses that an

elaborate framework for organisation of local cadres for parts of the State has been made
both for the purposes of fitment of the existing employees as well as those to be recruited
in future, as also for transfer, seniority and promotional avenues, which are either
localised or State-wide, as the case may be. This is apparent from Paras 3 and 6 of the
Presidential Order. Para 4 of the Presidential Order lays down the principles that should
govern the allotment of persons to local cadres which are specified in Para 4(2) (a) to (e).
Para 4(4) and 4(5) enable consideration of grievances with regard to allotment and
rectification of the same, wherever found necessary and warranted. Para 4(6) enacts
finality to any order of the State Government made on any representation setting out
grievances with regard to allotment, subject, however, to adjudication of such dispute by
the Administrative Tribunal constituted for the State of Andhra Pradesh under Art. 371D
(3) of the Constitution.
Para 14 of the Presidential Order saves posts in specified departments,

establishments or institutions from the provisions of the Presidential Order, which includes
any post of Police Officer as defined in Cl.(b) of Sec. 3 of the Hyderabad City Police Act
1348 Fasli. The posts in institutions, departments or establishments set out in Para 14 of
the Presidential Order are thus outside the ambit of the provisions of the Presidential
Order. Para 11 enacts an over riding effect to the provisions of the Presidential Order over
any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or other order made before or after the
commencement of the Presidential Order.
Para 5 specifies that each part of the State for which a local cadre has been
organised in respect of any category of posts shall be a separate unit for the purpose of
recruitment, appointment, discharge, seniority, promotion and transfer and such other
matters as may be specified by the State Government, in respect of that category of
posts.
On an analysis of the provisions of the Presidential Order and in particular those

adumbrated above, it is clear that having regard to the historical compulsions which have
led to the enactment of Art.371D, the Presidential Order provides the framework for intra
State compartmentalisation of certain posts under the rubric of local cadres, constituted
for parts of the State and protects the service conditions of members allotted or recruited
to such local cadres in respect of matters specified in Para 5(1). The local cadres are thus
the result of the historical compulsions engendered by economic and other differentia
operating between parts of the State of Andhra Pradesh and of the felt grievances of
residents of such parts of the State.
In construing the power granted to the State Government under Para 5(2) for
making provisions for transfers of persons, we must not loose sight of the historical
compulsions which have led to the enactment of the Presidential Order, which is
butteressed by the over riding effect given to the provisions of the Presidential Order not
only against the exercise of the majoritarian, political and executive choices of the State,
but is also made operative against any other provisions of the Constitution of India
(Art.371D(10) read with Para 11 of the Presidential Order).
It is not in dispute that in terms of Section 3 of the Act, 1985, the State
Government may transfer a member of the police force from one place to another within
the State. It is also not in dispute that the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.288 dated 06-05-
1986 provide for transfer of members of the police force.
What was questioned before the Tribunal is the validity or otherwise of Rule 3 of
the said rules. The vires of Rule 3 aforementioned has been questioned inter alia on the
ground that no guideline has been provided therein and thereby an unbridled and
uncanalised power has been conferred.
The said rules apply to every member of police force from the rank of police
constables to the rank of Inspector and were of equivalent ranks working in District Armed
Forces (DAR) etc. The applicability of the rule therefore is limited to the officers specified
therein. By reason of Rule 2 no power has been delegated but mere competency of the
concerned officers had been provided. Rule 3 protects seniority. Such seniority is required
to be protected having regard to the provisions contained in the Presidential Order. The
salutary principle underlying the framing of Rule 3 is the administrative ground and public
interest.
What is an administrative ground and what would be an action in public interest

although may vary from case to case, but the power of judicial review against an order of
transfer is not excluded. The Court exercising its power of judicial review can always
interfere in the event a transfer has not been made on administrative ground or in public
interest.
Non-availability of competent officer and public interest are themselves provide for
adequate guidelines. Furthermore, in a case where an action is contrary to the principle
enunciated in the Presidential Order, a judicial review would lie and thus it cannot be said
that Rule 3 is ultra vires Article 14 or 246 of the Constitution of India.
However, there cannot be any dispute that Clause (10) of Article 371-D of the
Constitution of India will have primacy.
We may notice that no separate organisation has come into being in terms of Para
3(1) of the Presidential Order. Para 3(3) of the said order refers to the zonal posts. Para
3(5) apply to both gazetted and non-gazetted posts. Although a power has been conferred
in Para 3(6) to create a separate cadre of posts which has to be organised for the city of
Hyderabad, no such cadre has come into being. Further, in terms of notification issued by
the Central Government in G.S.R.No.528 (E) dated 18-10-1975, the Police Department is
not part of the said notification for the purposes of organisation of a separate cadre for the
city of Hyderabad. Para 3(5) will have application only in relation to the said local cadres,
which have been organised in respect of any category of posts. Such local cadre would be
a separate unit inter alia for the purposes of recruitment, appointment, discharge,
seniority, promotion and transfer.
Para 5(2) provides the repository of the power. Para 5(2) (a) has no application in
the instant case.
The State Government has made provisions for transfer of a person from a local
cadre to another local cadre where no qualified or suitable persons is available in the latter
cadre or where such transfer is otherwise considered necessary in the public interest. The
power of the State Government is therefore limited. The said power can be exercised only
in the event the conditions precedent therefore are satisfied.
In terms of the II Schedule there are only six zones. The city of Hyderabad comes
within the purview of Zone-VI. The city of Hyderabad, although loosely treated as a
separate zone, but no such separate zone has been created. The city of Hyderabad
therefore comes within the purview of Zone VI only.
A transfer from one cadre to another cadre has to be made keeping in view the
various contingencies viz., a) having regard to the public interest and permanent in
nature; b) it is transient in nature; c) temporary and d) shifting the cadre.
Seniority of the person concerned was therefore required to be protected, having

regard to the fact that even if a transfer from one cadre to another is temporary, a
situation may arise where the question of his promotion may come up. Unless appropriate
safeguard is made, as regards seniority of a person transferred, he may not be considered
for promotion at all.
Having regard to Para 5(2) (c) of the Order, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever
that the State has the requisite power to make transfers in public interest. As there does
not exist any Hyderabad zone, Para 5(2) (a) would not come into play at all.
Transfer under general law is an incidence of service, but having regard to the
peculiar situation obtaining in the State of Andhra Pradesh and in particular having regard
to the Presidential Order, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a person cannot be
transferred from one cadre to another cadre in a normal situation. An order of transfer
would be permissible only when the condition precedent therefor exists.
In each case, the State is required to apply its mind and come to a conclusion as to
whether an order of transfer should be passed, having regard to non-availability of a
suitable person or in public interest. Non-availability of a suitable person may be
temporary nature. As and when a suitable person is found out, a person belonging to the
local cadre may replace a transferee.
If for the aforementioned purpose, a policy decision has been taken by the State
that no permanent transfer shall be made, the same cannot be found fault with.
Insofar as public interest is concerned, transfer from one cadre to another cadre is
permissible. Such public interest may either be temporary or permanent in nature.
In a case where an order of transfer is required by way of temporary measure,

the officer concerned should be transferred back to his parent zone. However, there
may be some exceptional circumstances where transfer of a person on permanent basis
from one cadre to another cadre may have to be affected. Situations may vary from
circumstances to circumstances. As for example, when grave law and order problem
arises in one part of the State, transfer from one cadre to another cadre with a view to
meet the exigency of the situation is not prohibited. Further more, when the services of
a particular officer may become necessary, having regard to his expertise or experience
in dealing with the similar matters, public interest may demand of his services be
requisitioned. But, inter cadre transfer should be made in exceptional situations. It is
now a common knowledge that entire cadre transfer is sought for and is made for
extraneous considerations having regard to the chances of promotion better amenities and
other factors. In a case of such nature, the orders of transfer cannot be passed
and having regard to the scheme of the Presidential Order vis-à-vis the said Act and the
Rules, such orders of the transfer can be interfered with by the Tribunal or by this
Court.
In S.PRAKASHA RAO v CCT1 the apex Court clearly held that the State Government
has no blanket power to create local cadres, as the same would tend to defeat the object
of Article 371-D and the Presidential Order. As regards organisation of a separate cadre is
concerned, having regard to the language used in Para 3(7), it was held that the same
may be given effect to.
(1 AIR 1990 (2) SCC 259)
But, as noticed hereinbefore, no separate cadre has been created in respect of the
police force so far as Hyderabad is concerned and thus the city of Hyderabad is comprised
in Zone VI. As further noticed hereinbefore, no person has been appointed strictly in
terms of the Hyderabad City Police Act and thus even the provisions contained in Para 14
(f) will have no application.
In GOVT. OF A.P. v A.SURYANARAYANA RAO2 the apex Court held
Para 5 of the Presidential Order is also to the same effect. When once each zone is
treated as a separate unit for the purpose of promotion also in respect of zonal posts
than by virtue of Article 371-D and the Presidential Order. As observed above, the
promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer which
are both zonal posts, should be on the basis of the zonal seniority list inasmuch as
the post of Junior Engineer and the next promotion post namely Assistant Engineer
are included in the local cadre and the zonal list as we find in the Third Schedule.
With regards the higher posts which are not included in the local cadre and which are
Statewide posts, it becomes obvious that the Statewide seniority list of the Assistant
Engineers of all zones should beprepared and that should be the basis of promotion
to the post of Executive Engineer which is not a zonal post.
The apex Court reiterated the dicta in S.PRAKASH RAO (1 Supra) and held that the
zonal seniority list prepared pursuant to the initial organisation and creation of local cadres
has to be maintained.
A similar question came up for consideration recently in GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH V.MOHD.GHOUSE MOHINUDDIN & ORS3 and therein the earlier decisions of the
apex Court in S.PRAKASH RAO (1 supra) and SURYANARAYANA RAO (2 Supra) were
upheld. In the aforementioned decision, the apex Court also held:
(2 AIR 1991 S.C 2113) (3 OT 2001 (7) S.C 146)
5. A combined reading of Paragraph 3 (i) and 3(7), therefore makes it clear

that within 18 months from the commencement of the Presidential Order, the State
Government could organise classes of posts in the Civil Services of the State into
different local cadres for the purpose of achieving the main objective of the
Presidential Order, and such organised local cadre, would be the area of operation for
considering the question of recruitment, promotion etc. this being the position, the
Tribunal committed error by holding that Paragraph 3(3) of the Presidential Order
would have an over-riding effect.
The apex Court upon analysing the provisions of Article 371-D vis-à-vis the
Presidential Order held that Para 3 (7) would have an over riding effect upon Para 3 (3).
Understood in the context of its evolutional history, the power conferred on the State
Government under Para 5 (2) must necessarily be interpreted as a power to make a
provision for transfers for exceptional reasons, which will have to be such as to warrant a
departure from the framework of local cadres carefully structured under the provisions of
the Presidential Order. If the expression “nothing in this order shall prevent the State
Government” from making provisions for transfers (Para 5(2)) is to be given its ordinary,
natural and grammatical construction, the entire scheme of the Presidential Order
including the immunity provided to such order from the legislative and executive power of
the State would be rendered nugatory and illusory. After a local cadre is organised and
allotments/direct recruitment made to such local cadres, the State would be free to make
provisions for transfers, totally disrupting the harmony of local cadres so achieved, by the
devise of free transferability and that cellular discipline of local cadres could be totally
subverted. Such irrationality cannot be imputed to the Presidential Order.
On the above analysis we hold that the power of the State Government to make a
provision for transfer in any of the circumstances and exigencies set out in sub-Paras (a)
to (c) of Para 5(2) is a power circumscribed by the limitation that such transfers are to be
only in exceptional circumstances, in exigencies of over riding public interest or where no
qualified or suitable person is available in a particular local cadre and predominantly only
for a transient period for which such contingency exists, an exception being the
circumstance enumerated in Para 5(2)(d) namely reciprocal basis.
To maintain the sanctity of the local cadre discipline in particular is set out in the
provisions of Para 5(1), we also hold that while effecting any transfers by virtue of a
provisions made by the State Government under Para 5(2). Clear and specific reasons
must be recorded justifying such transfer within the contours of Para 5(2)(a) to (d). Such
recording of reasons is essential to enable conformity of the State‟s power to transfer with
the provisions of the Presidential Order. Such recording of reasons would facilitate and
ensure the exercise of power of transfer within the confined and limited contours available
to the State.
Having regard to the provisions of Para 14 of the Presidential Order, no limitations

are prescribed on the power of the State Government to provide for transfer of the
incumbent of a post in any department, institution or establishment enumerated in
Para 14 to another such department, institution or establishment.
In so far as transfers of persons falling within the ambit of Para 5(2)(a) to (c) is
concerned, provisions of the Act 1985 and the rules thereunder set out in
G.O.Ms.No.288 dt 6.5.1986, must be construed as enabling such transfers only when no

qualified or suitable person is available in a particular local cadre or where such transfer is
otherwise considered necessary in the public interest and for no other reason. Normally
such transfers must necessarily be of limited duration or tenure to meet the specified
exigency namely either during the period no qualified or suitable person is available or the
public interest that necessitated such transfer, continues. Immediately on cessation of
such circumstances – as and when a qualified or suitable person is available or when the
public interest concerned ceases to operate, the persons so transferred in the above
exigencies must need be repatriated to the local cadre to which he belongs either by
allotment or direct recruitment to it. There may be very rare circumstances, and very rare
they must necessarily be, where a persons is required to be transferred to another local
cadre on a longer term basis. Clear reasons for such long term transfer must not only
exist but must be clearly recorded. In any case wherever such transfer, be it for a short
term or longer term, the transfers made in the circumstances set out in Para 5(2)(a) to (c)
being on administrative exigencies, must enable the person so transferred to carry the
benefit of his seniority to the transferred local cadre. To this extent Rule 3 of the Rules
made under the Act 1985 must be held to be valid.
In the case of a transfer on reciprocal basis, Para 5(2)(d) itself mandates that the
person transferred shall be assigned seniority in the later cadre with effect from the date
of his transfer to such cadre. Rule 3 of the Rules made under the Act 1985 would have no
application in such a case and the provisions of Para 5(2)(d) would operate. We are of the
opinion that even in respect of a transfer under Para 5(2)(d) the principles/guidelines for
allotment in Para 4(2) should be borne in mind and reciprocal transfers should not be
freely approved which would gravely disrupt the need for composition of balance cadre
having regard to age and seniority or the administrative needs of the posts in the local
cadre.
Nothing has been placed before this court to demonstrate that any appointments of
police officers have been made only under the provisions of either the Hyderabad City
Police Act 1348 Fasli but they have been made also under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra
Area) District Police Act 1859 or the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) District Police Act
1349 Fasli. All appointments have been made under the relevant Rules made under
proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution including the Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules;
Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules; Andhra Pradesh police (Armed Reserve)
Service Rules; Andhra Pradesh (Communications) Subordinate Service Rules; Andhra
Pradesh Police (Computer Centre) Service Rules and the Andhra Pradesh Police (Computer
Centre) Subordinate Service Rules, etc.
Sec.2(b) of Hyderabad City Police Act 1348 Fasli defines a Police Officer to include
every member of the City Police Force appointed under this Act as also the
Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad, the Deputy or Assistant Commissioner of Police

and subject to provisions of sub-sec.(2) of Sec. 9 and sub-Sec.(2) of Sec.10 every person
who has been appointed as an Additional or Special Police Officer. Sec.7 of this Act vests
in the Commissioner of City Police the power to appoint and promote Inspector of Police,
Sub Inspector of Police and other subordinates of the force and empowers the
Government to appoint the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Police.
Sections 9 and 10 provide the power to appoint Additional Police Officer and Special Police
respectively. No Police Officer has been appointed under the provisions of this Act. All
recruitments are notified and appointments made under the Special Rules made under the
proviso to Art 309 of the Constitution. Thus, though the post of a Police Officer as defined
in Sec.3(b) of the Hyderabad City Police Act 1348 Fasli is beyond the purview of the
Presidential Order in view of Para 14 of the said Order, there is in fact no Police Officer as
defined in Sec.3(b) of the Hyderabad City Police Act 1348 Fasli, factually in existence.
As there has been no constitution of a separate cadre for the city of Hyderabad for
members of the Police Force in terms of Para 3(6) of the Presidential Order, members of
the police force allotted or recruited to Hyderabad must be construed as having been so
allotted or recruited to either the District cadre of Hyderabad or zonal cadre of Zone VI viz
Hyderabad , Nizamabad, Mahabubnagar, Medak and Nalgonda Districts, as the case may
be, depending upon the rank they hold, whether it is a District cadre post or a Zonal cadre
post.
The post of an Inspector of Police in the Police department having been specified as
item 51 of the 3rd Schedule and being a specified gazetted category in terms of Para 2 (1)
(i) read with 3(4) of the Presidential Order and being required therefore, to be organised
into a zonal cadre of Inspector of Police including those working for the nonce as part of
the Hyderabad city police, have to be considered as members of Zone VI which includes
the District of Hyderabad. They do not fall within the provisions of Para 14 of the
Presidential Order. The transfers from and to the establishments and units of Hyderabad
City Police therefore fall within the parameters of Para 5(2)(c) to (d). A person once
allotted to one zone and attached to his post must be said to be belonging to the same
zone and he has no right to come to any other cadre, which is not organised one.
To the aforementioned extent, the Full bench decision of the Tribunal in

O.A.Nos.22622 to 635 must be held to have not been rendered correctly.
CONCLUSIONS.
(a) Transfers from and to the departments, institutions/establishments specified in

Para 14 of the Presidential Order are outside the limitations of the Presidential
Order.
(b) No separate cadre has been organised for the City of Hyderabad within the
meaning of Para 3(6) of the Presidential Order.
(c) No recruitment to the post of a police officer as defined in Sec.3(b) of Hyderabad

City Police Act 1348 Fasli has been made and there is thus factually no incumbent
of the post of a police officer under Para 14(f) of the Presidential Order.
(d) Inspectors of Police working in the Hyderabad City Police establishments either on
promotion to that post or by direct recruitment, must be considered as belonging
to Zone VI in the zonal cadre.
(e) The provisions of Sec.3 of the Act 1985 imposing a liability on a member of the
police force to serve in any part of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the
concomitant power of the State Government to effect such transfer has to be in
conformity with the provisions of Para 5(2) of the Presidential Order in view of the
provisions of Art.371D(10) of the Constitution and Para 11 of the Presidential
Order.
(f) Transfer of a member of the police force from any local cadre to any office or
establishment under Para 14 or vice versa, the transfer of a person from any local
cadre comprising posts in any office or establishment exercising territorial
jurisdiction over a part of the State to another local cadre comprising posts of such
part or vice versa and the transfer of a person from one local cadre to another local
cadre could be effected only where no qualified or suitable person is available in
such later cadre or where such transfer is otherwise considered necessary in the
public interest and not otherwise. Wherever such transfers are made on the
ground of public interest, such public interest must be of such overriding impact as
to warrant a departure from the local cadre discipline set out in paras 3,4, 5(i) and
6 of the Presidential Order.
(g) While effecting such transfer, reasons must be recorded justifying such transfers
either on the ground of there being no qualified or suitable person available in the
cadre to which transfer is to be effected or on the ground of over riding public
interest.
(h) Such transfers are normally to be of limited duration or tenure coterminus with the
specified exigency for which the transfer is made and shall cease to be operative
and the incumbent transferred liable to be reverted to the parent cadre
immediately on the cessation of such exigency, which warranted the transfer.
(i) Transfer on long-term basis or of indeterminate duration should be in the rarest of

circumstances, again for clearly specified reasons and there should be a
periodical review of the need for continuance of the person so transferred in the
transferred local cadre.
(j) In all cases of transfer made in the circumstances set out in Para 5(2)(a) to (c) and
on the principles aforestated, the persons so transferred is entitled to his seniority
in the unit to which he is transferred. Rule 3 of the Rules under the Act 1985 is
valid.
(k) In the case of transfers on reciprocal basis, the seniority of persons transferred
shall be in accordance with the prescriptions of Para 5(2)(d). Rule 3 of the Rules
under the Act, 1985 is in such cases inoperative.
(l) Even in case of transfers on reciprocal basis, due regard must be had to the
principles of maintenance of composition of balance local cadre with reference to
age and seniority groups, the administrative needs of the posts in the local cadres
and the like as set out in Para 4 (2) of the Presidential Order.
(m) Rule 3 of the Rules made under the provisions of the Act 1985 is operative to the
extent it is in conformity with the principles set out in paras (J) and (K) above.
Before parting with this case, we may notice that various other findings of the
learned Tribunal had been questioned by the learned counsel for the parties on several
grounds, but having regard to the fact that the questions raised in the respective O.As are
required to be considered afresh, as at present advised, we do not intend to enter into the
said questions.
Having answered the reference as above, resolution of the individual cases is

relegated to the Division Bench to be decided on merits of each of the writ petitions.
Sd/-
P.Ekambaram,
Asst.Registrar
Sd/-
Section Officer.
// true copy //
PLEASE SEE THE STATEMENT PERTAINING

TO ANNEXURE NO. 3 IN THE XLS FORMAT AT
THE END OF THE REPORT
Annexure-4
LIST OF POSTS KEPT OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION
1. Assistant Secretary to Government in A.P. General Service.
2. L.D.Cs in the Persian Research Section of the State Archieves.
3. Deputy Secretary to the Governor of A.P. was excluded from the purview
of the Commission.
4. Posts of Social Workers (now Craft Instructress) and games Supervisors

in A.P. General Subordinate Service.
5. Superintendents, State Home for Women (Gazetted), Women‟s Welfare

Department.
6. Gazetted District Women‟s Welfare Officers in Women‟s Welfare

Department.
7. Stewards and Assistant Stewards, Cash Keepers.
8. Librarians and Assistant Librarians.
9. Lower Division Clerks in all Offices except in the Office of the Heads of
Departments and Secretariat Department.
10. Linen Keepers.
11. Laundry Supervisors
12. Security Clerks and Typists of L.D. Cadre in all Offices except in the
Offices of Heads of Departments and Secretariat Department.
13. Ministerial posts of Superintendent and Offices Assistants in the Records

Office, Non-Indian State Forces, Hyderabad
14. Office in charge Records Office, Non Indian State Forces, Hyderabad
15. Statistical Assistants in A.P. Marketing Subordinate Service.
16. Non-cadre Deputy Secretaries, to Government in Finance Planning (F.W)

have been kept out side the purview of the Commission.
17. Dental Assistant Surgeons.
18. School Assistants in Panchayat Raj Institutions.
19. Extension Officers (Panchayats).
20. Steno-Typist in A.P. Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta.
21. In Public Enterprises Management Board and Horticultural Officers vide

G.O.Ms.No.582, G.A.(Ser.A) Dept., dt. 12-12-1985.
22. Vide G.O.Ms.No.46, G.A.(Ser.A) Department, dated 20-02-1986 appointment

of meritorious Sportsman to the post of A.S.O./Typist-cum-Assistant and
Junior Stenographers in the Departments of Secretariat and Senior Assistant,
Junior Assistant, Typists and Junior Stenos in Heads of Departments.
23. Junior Medical Officers in Indian Medicine and Homeopathy Department

vide G.O.Ms.No.615, G.A.(Ser.A) Department, dated 13-11-1990.
24. Posts indicated in U.O.Note No.560/SES/-1/A1/92, dated 08-02-1993 of

Employment Generation and Youth Services (SES-I) Department.
25. Excise Inspector – Excise Department vide G.O.Ms.No.453, Revenue

Department, dated 30-05-1997.
26. Manager Guest House in Government House Department, vide

G.O.Ms.No.466, G.A.D. dated 28-09-1997.
27. School Assistants in A.P. Educational Subordinate Service

vide G.O.Ms.No.226, G.A.(Ser.A) Department., dated 01-07-2000.
* * *
THE FOLLOWING RECRUITMENTS WITHDRAWN FROM THE PURVIEW OF

THE ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
* * *
1. Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) in Police Department. G.O.Ms.No.202,
Home (Pol. C) Dept. dt. 02-04-1985.
2. Group-IV Services (District Posts) G.O.Ms.No.259, G.A. (Ser.A) Dept.

dt.04-06-1985 G.O.Ms.No.260 G.A. (Ser.A) Dept. dt. 05-06-1985.
3. Civil Assistant Surgeons in A.P.Medical & Health Service G.O.Ms.No.441,

M & H Dept. dt. 05-07-1986.
4. Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in Animal Husbandry Dept. G.O.Ms.No.74,

Food & Agril. Dept. dt.05-021988.
5. Agricultural Officers/ Horticulture Officers G.O.Ms.No.148, Food & Agril. Dept.

dt.15-03-1989.
6. School assistants in Panchayat Raj Institutions in A.P. Educational Sub-

Service G.O.Ms.No.299 G.A. (Ser.A) Dept. dt. 02-06-1989.
7. Junior Medical Officers in Indian Medicine & Homeopathy Dept. G.O.Ms.No.615,

G.A. (Ser.A) Dept. dt. 13-11-1990.
8. Medical officers in Indian Medicine & Homeopathy Dept. G.O.Ms.No.17,

M & H & FW Dept. dt. 10-011992.
9. District Munsiffs in A.P. State Judicial Service, G.O.Ms.No.124, Law Dept.

dt. 05-08-1996.
10. Excise Inspectors in A.P. Excise Service, G.O.Ms.No.453, Revenue ( Excise) Dept.
dt. 30-051997.
11. Manager ( Guest House) in Govt. House Dept., G.O.Ms.No.466, G.A. Dept.
dt. 28-09-1997.
12. Tutors. Assuistant Professors ( Clinical/non-Clinical) in A.P. Medical & Health Service,
G.O.Ms.No.80 G.A. (Ser.A) Dept. dt. 07-03-1998.
13. Immunologists in Medical Department.
14. Gramodaya Officers.
15. School Assistants in A.P. Educational Sub-Service, G.O.Ms.No.226, G.A. (Ser.A) Dept.
dt.01-07-2000.
16. G.O.Ms.No.70 Law (L.A & J Courts-D1) Dept. dt.18-05-2002 (Jr. Assts, Typists and
Steno-Typists in A.P. Judicial/Ministerial Services).
*****
Annexure-5
LIST OF POSTS IN GROUP-IV SERVICES (OTHER THAN POSTS IN THE HEADS

OF DEPARTMENTS, SECRETARIAT DEPARTMENTS AND THE ANDHRA PRADESH
JUDICIAL MINISTERIAL SERVICES) IN SUBORDINATE OFFICES UNDER THE
PURVIEW OF DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEES.
* * *
1. Junior Assistants, Junior Auditors, Junior / L.D. Accountants in all offices.
2. Typists and Junior Stenographers of L.D. Cadre in all offices.
3. Security Clerks.
4. Librarians and Assistant Librarians.
5. Cash Keepers.
6. Stewards
7. Assistant Stewards
8. Linen Keepers.
9. Laundry Supervisors.
and
10. The posts of the School Assistants in Panchayat Raj Institutions and the
A.P.Educational Sub-Service.
* * *
Annexure-6
ATTESTATION FORM
ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
1. Name in Full (in Block Capitals)
With aliases, if any Surname Name
(Please indicate if you have added or dropped at any

stage, any part of your name or surname)
2. Present Address in Full
(i.e. Village, Thana and District or House Number, Lane /
Street and Road, Pin Code No.)
3. (a) Home Address in Full
(i.e. Village, Thana and District or House Number,
Lane/Street and Road, Pin Code No.)
(b) If Originally a resident of Pakistan, the Address in
that Dominion and the date of migration to Indian
Union,
4. Particulars of places where you have resident for more than one year during the preceding five years.
Residential Address in Full (i.e. Village, Thana

From To and District or House Number, Lane/Street and
Road.)
5. (a) Father‟s Name in full with aliases, if any ; (a)

(b) Present Postal Address (if dead, give last Address) (b)
(c) Permanent Home Address : (c)
(d) Profession : (d)
(e) If in service, give designation and official Address (e)
6. (i) Nationality of :
(a) Father (a)
(b) Mother (b)
(c) Husband (c)
(d) Wife (d)
(ii) Place of Birth :

(a) Husband (a)
(b) Wife (b)
7. (a) Exact date of Birth (a)

(b) Present Age (b)
(c) Age at Matriculation (c)
8. (a) Place of Birth, District and State in which it is (a)

situated.
(b)
(b) District and State to which you belong.
9. (a) State Your Religion. (a)
(b) “Are you a member of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled
Tribe or Backward Class? Answer „Yes‟ or „No‟ and (b)
if the answer is „Yes‟ please specify the exact Class/
Tribe/Gr.A,B,C,D”.
10. Educational qualifications showing places of education with year in Schools and Colleges since 15 th year of
age.
Name of School / College with full Address Date of entering Date of Examination Passed
leaving
11. If you have, at any time been employed, give details :

Full address of the office,
Designation of post held or description of work Period Firm or Institution
From To
12. Have you ever been arrested by the police, convicted

by a court or detained on any offence.
Note : If detained, arrested, convicted debarred etc. sub-sequent to the
completion and submission of this form, the details should be
communicated immediately to the A.P.P.S.C. or the authority to
whom the attestation form has been sent earlier, as the case may
be, failing which it will be deemed to be a suppression of factual
information. If the answer is „Yes‟ the full particulars of the
conviction and sentences should be given.
13. Names of two responsible persons of your locality or 1.
two references to whom you are known. 2.
14. Have you ever been member / worker of any Political

Party or Communal organisation and if so, furnish details
DECLARATION SHOULD BE SIGNED BY THE CANDIDATE
1. I hereby declare that the statements made in this form are true to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
2. I am married / unmarried and have only one wife living.
(delete which is not applicable)
3. I am fully aware that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual
information in the attestation form would be a disqualification and is likely to render
me unfit for employment under the Government.
4. I am also fully aware that if it comes to notice at any time during my service that
false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of factual
information in the attestation form my services would be liable to be terminated
solely on this ground.
Date : ………………………..
Place:………………………… Signature of the Candidate
Certificate to be signed by a Gazette Officer or Member of Legislature or other as

authority prescribed by the Appointing Authority.)
Certified that I have known Sri / Smt……..………………………… Son / Daughter of Sri
…………………..… for the last ……………… years …………… months …………….. and to the best of
my knowledge and belief the particulars furnished by him / her are correct.
Date : ……………………….. Signature

Place:………………………… Designation of Status and Address
Annexure-7
KARNATAKA ACT No.11 OF 1974
(First published in the Karnataka Gazette Extraordinary on the Eleventh day of

April, 1974)
THE KARNATAKA STATE CIVIL SERVICES (REGULATION OF

PROMOTION, PAY AND PENSION) ACT, 1973.
(Received the assent of the Governor on the Eleventh day of April 1974)
(As amended by Acts 40 of 1976 and 25 of 1982)
An Act to provide for the prospective promotions of civil servants, and to regulate
the pay, seniority, pension and other conditions of service of civil servants in the State of
Karnataka including those that are allotted or deemed to be allotted to serve in connection
with the affairs of the State of Karnataka under or in pursuance of section 115 of the States
Reorganisation Act, 1956.
Whereas on the basis of the ranking of civil servants in the several inter State
seniority lists prepared in pursuance of sub-section (5) of section 115 of the States
Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Central Act 37 of 1956), courts have directed the making of
retrospective promotions to statutory and other offices.
And whereas as held by the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Vs. State of Punjab,
reported in all India Reporter 1967, Supreme Court 856 and in Income-Tax Officer, Alleppy
Vs. N.C. Ponnoose, reported in All India Reporter 1970, Supreme Court 385 appointments
of civil servants to offices in which statutory functions are exercisable cannot be made with
retrospective effect.
And whereas retrospective promotions involve payment of large sums of money to

persons who have not worked in the promotional posts of officers concerned, to the
detriment of the finances of the State, besides involving retrospective reversions rendering
invalid the statutory functions discharged by the persons reverted.
And whereas retrospective promotions preclude the determination of the suitability

of the civil servants to hold the promotional posts or offices and will enable them to
continue in such posts or offices only on the ground of their eligibility to promotions,
resulting in the continuance of even unsuitable civil servants in promotional posts or offices
to the detriment of public interest.
And whereas it is necessary and expedient to provide against the said

consequences.
And whereas the Central Government has given previous approval under the
proviso to sub-section (7) of section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Central
Act 37 of 1956) communicated in letter No.5/5/73-SR (S) dated 22nd February 1973 of
the Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Personnel and Administrative

Reforms.
Be it enacted by the Karnataka Legislature in the Twenty-fourth Year of the Republic
of India as follows:
1. Short title and commencement:- (1) This Act may be called the Karnataka
State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973.
(2) This section and sections 2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and section 12 shall be deemed to
have come into force on the first day of November 1956, and the remaining sections shall
come into force at once.
2. Definitions:- In this act unless the context otherwise requires:-
(a) „allottee‟ means a Government servant allotted or deemed to have been allotted
to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka under or in pursuance of
section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Central Act 37 of 1956).
(b) „civil servant‟ means a person who is a member of civil service of the State of
Karnataka or who holds a civil post under the State of Karnataka and includes an allottee.
(c) „final seniority list‟ means an inter-State seniority list of allottees prepared in
accordance with the decisions of Central Government under the provisions of sub-section
(5) of section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Central Act 37 of 1956).
(d) „inter-State seniority list‟ means an inter-State seniority list prepared from time
to time, on the basis of the seniority in which the eligibility of an allottee to promotion to
higher post or posts is considered.
(e) „rules of recruitment‟ means the rules of recruitment made in respect of
recruitment to any service, post, office or class of posts or offices.
3. Promotions, etc., of civil servants:- (1) No civil servant shall:-
1
[(a) be entitled to promotion to any post or office with effect from a retrospective
date, except and to the extent specified in the rules made under this Act].
(1 Substituted by Act 40 of 1976, S-8, (11-4-1974)
(b) only on the ground of his seniority in a seniority list, be promoted to any post or
office unless the authority competent to promote determines his eligibility and promotes
him by a written order to officiate in such post or office; and no such civil servant shall,
save as provided in section 9, be entitled to continue in such promoted post or office unless
the said authority assesses the work of such civil servant in such post or office and declares
by a written order that he had satisfactorily completed his officiation.
(c) when promoted to officiate in any post or office save as provided in section 9,
be entitled to be considered for promotion to the next higher post or office unless he
is declared to have satisfactorily completed his officiation in the first promoted post or
office.
(2) In matters not specified in sub-section (1), the provisions contained in sections
4,5,6,7 and 8 shall mutatis mutandis, be applicable.
4. Promotions, etc., of allottees:- (1) Where the seniority of an allottee as
specified in the provisional inter-State seniority list in any class of post or office has been
altered in the final seniority list relating to that class, every promotion made on any date
after the first day of November 1956, on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, shall be reviewed
with reference to the qualifications and other conditions laid down in the rules of
recruitment applicable at the relevant time for such promotion and the ranking in the final
seniority list assigned to the allottees in that class of post or office, if any person senior in
rank than the person promoted is held to be suitable for promotion on such date
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the date of eligibility), an order shall, subject to
section 9, be made promoting the said person to officiate in the said post or office with
effect from a prospective date to be specified in the order.
(2) As soon as may be, after the person promoted under sub-section (1) is declared
to have satisfactorily completed the period of officiation in the promoted post or office an
order shall, subject to section 9, be made directing that he shall be entitled to initial pay on
the date of actual promotion to the post or office as if he was holding the said post or office
from the date of eligibility and drawn the pay and allowances accordingly, but such person
shall not be entitled to payment of any arrears for the period prior to the date of his actual
promotion. His rank in the seniority list of persons in the class or grade of service to which
he is promoted shall be fixed as if he had been promoted to that class or grade of service
on the date of eligibility.
(3) Where consequent upon the review of promotions made under sub-section (1),
it is found that an allottee, who, before the coming in to force of sections 3, 11 and
13 had been promoted to a higher class or grade of service found eligible for promotion
to that higher class or grade of service from a date prior to the date of actual promotion
and subject to section 9, is declared to have satisfactorily completed the period of
officiation in the promoted post or office, an order shall be made directing that he shall
be entitled to initial pay on the date of actual promotion to the post or office as if he was
holding the said post or office from the date on which he is found eligible for promotion
and drawn the pay and allowances accordingly, but he shall not be entitled to payment
of any arrears for the period prior to the date of the actual promotion. 1[Where, on
such review he is found eligible for promotion to a higher class or grade of service from
a date subsequent to the date of his actual promotion to such class or grade of service,
his pay on the date of eligibility shall be refixed as if he had been promoted on such
date but he shall not be liable to refund the excess pay and allowances drawn by him up to
the date of issue of the order fixing the date of eligibility.] His rank in the seniority
list of persons in the class or grade of service to which he is promoted shall be fixed as if he
had been promoted to that class or grade of service on the date on which he is found.
(1. Inserted by Act 25 of 1982, S-2 (1-11-1956)
(4) Where an order is made in respect of any allottee under sub-section (2) or, as
the case may be, under sub-section (3), and the ranking in the seniority list of persons in
the promoted class or grade of service, as fixed by such order, stands revised, the
promotions made from that class or grade of service to the next higher class or grade of
service shall be reviewed in accordance with and subject to the provisions of sub-section
(1) as if reference therein to the final seniority list were references to the aforesaid revised
seniority list and the provisions of sub-section (2) shall, mutatis mutandis, be applicable
to every promotion so made.
(5) The provisions of sub-section (4) shall, mutatis mutandis, be applicable in

respect of promotions of allottees to the next higher classes or grades of the same service.
(6) The provisions of sub-section (3) shall mutatis mutandis, be applicable in

respect of review of promotions of allottees made under sub-sections (4) and (5).
(7) Where in respect of promotions on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from any

class or grade of service to the next higher class or grade of service, the rules of
recruitment require service for a minimum period in the former class or grade to become
eligible for promotion, the said period shall in its application to an allottee eligible for
promotion under this section, be deemed to be the period during which he satisfactorily
completes the period of officiation in the post or office of that class or grade of service and
no such minimum service shall be necessary in the case of an allottee whose record of
service was satisfactory on the relevant dates of eligibility or the relevant dates on which he
is found eligible for promotion.
(8) In respect of promotions from any class or grade of service by selection to

the next higher class or grade of service, where an allottee would have been eligible for
consideration if he had been promoted to the former class or grade of service on the
basis of his seniority in the final seniority list, such allottee, shall subject to section9, be
considered for selection to the next higher class or grade of service, immediately after
he satisfactorily completes the period of officiation in the said former class or grade of
service. If he is selected and promoted to the higher class or grade of service and
satisfactorily completes his period of officiation in the said class or grade, he shall be
entitled to initial pay on the date of actual promotion to the said class or grade as if he
was holding the said post or office from the date on which his immediate junior in the
lower class or grade was promoted to the said class or grade of service, but he shall not
be entitled to payment of any arrears for the period prior to the date of his actual
promotion. His rank in the seniority list of the persons in the said class or grade shall be
fixed as if he had been promoted on the date immediately preceding the date on which his
immediate junior in the lower class or grade was promoted to the selection class or grade
of service.
(9) An order under sub-section (2) in respect of an allottee who had been reduced
to a lower stage in a time scale and whose increment had been withheld shall be subject to
such modification as the State Government may, by order direct.
(10) No promotions of allottees made on the basis of any provisional inter-State

seniority list, shall be reviewed except after the publication of the final seniority list and in
the manner provided in this section.
Explanation:- For purposes of this sub-section provisional inter-State seniority list

includes every inter-State seniority list used as the basis for carrying on the day-to-day
administration whether prepared by the State Government or declared by court as
operative until the publication of the final seniority list.
5. Provision relating to reversion of allottees:- (1) Where consequent upon

the review of promotions under section 4 any allottee promoted to any class of posts or
offices is found not entitled to continue in that class, he shall be reverted to :-
(a) the class of posts or offices to which he would have been eligible for promotion
on the basis of his rank in the final seniority list, or
(b) the class of posts or offices in which he would have continued on the basis of his
rank in the final seniority list.
(2) Where any reversion is made under clause (a) of sub-section (1), the rank of
the allottee in the seniority list of that class of posts or offices shall be fixed as
if he had been promoted to that class of posts or offices on the basis of his
rank in the seniority list.
6. Provision relating to revision of pensions, etc:- Where consequent upon
a review of promotions under section 4, it is found that any allottee who has retired
from service before an order under sub-section (1), (3), (4), (5), (6) or (8) of section 4,
is made, or before the expiry of the period of his officiation in the promoted post or
office would have been eligible for promotion to the next higher class or grade of service
under the said section if the final seniority list had been published on the first day of
November, 1956, his pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity shall be revised with
reference to the pay and allowance he would have drawn if he had been promoted to
the next higher class or grade of service on the date on which he was found eligible for
such promotion with reference to his rank in the final seniority list and the relevant
recruitment rules, and as if he had satisfactorily completed the period of officiation in the
said class or grade of service.
7. Provision relating to payments to heirs of deceased allottees:- Where

consequent upon a review of promotions under section 4, it is found that any allottee who
before an order under sub-sections (1), (3), (4), (5), (6) or (8) of section 4, is made, or
before the expiry of the period of officiation in a promoted post or office has while in service
or after retirement died, would have been eligible for promotion to the next higher class or
grade of service on any day under the said section if the final seniority list had been
published on the first day of November 1956, his pension and death-cum-retirement
gratuity shall be revised, with reference to the pay and allowances he would have drawn if
he had been promoted to the next higher class or grade of service on the date on which he
was found eligible for such promotion with reference to his rank in the final seniority list
and the relevant recruitment rules and as if he had satisfactorily completed the period of
officiation in the said class or grade of service, and the excess amount payable on such
revision of pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity shall be paid to the heirs of the said
deceased allottee.
8. Sections not applicable to certain allottees:- Provisions of section 4,5,6 and

7 in so far as they relate to promotion on the basis of ranking in the final seniority list shall
not be applicable to an allottee who:-
(a) has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired from service as a penalty;
(b) has been reduced to a lower service, grade or post or office or whose promotion
has been withheld as a penalty;
(c) has been retired from service in public interest;
(d) has been held unsuitable for promotion to any post or office or class of posts or
offices; or
(e) after promotion has been reverted to the lower post or office on the ground of
unsuitability to hold the higher post or office or class of posts or offices.
9. Officiation:- (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) the rules relating to

officiation made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India shall apply for
purposes of officiation under this Act.
(2) A civil servant shall be deemed to have satisfactorily completed the period of
officiation in the promoted post or office and may be promoted to one or more higher
classes or grades of service to which he is found eligible for promotion on the basis of his
seniority in the seniority list including the final seniority list if his record of service on the
date or dates on which he is found eligible for such promotion is satisfactory and indicates
that he is eligible for promotion to the next higher cadre and if he possesses the
qualifications prescribed in the rules of recruitment applicable at the relevant time for such
promotion.
1[9A. Rules:- (1) The State Government may make rules to carry out the
purposes of this Act.
(1. Inserted by Act 40 of 1976, S-8 (11-4-1974))
(2) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made
before each house of the State Legislature while it is in session for a total period of thirty
days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions and if
before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive
sessions aforesaid both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both
Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall, from the date on which the
modification or annulment is notified by the government in the Official Gazette, have effect
only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so however, that any
such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything
previously done under such rule.]
10. Removal of difficulties:- If any difficulty arises in the application of this Act
to any case, the State Government may make such orders as may be necessary for the
purpose of removing the difficulty.
11. Over-riding effect:- (1) The provisions of this Act or of any order made
thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in
any law or order having the force of law or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution of India for the time being in force or any provision regulating the
conditions of service of any allottee or in any order made by virtue of any such law, rules or
provisions.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgement, decree or order of any
court or other competent authority the rights to which a civil servant is entitled to in
respect of matters to which the provisions of this Act are applicable, shall be determined in
accordance with the provisions of this Act, and accordingly, any judgment, decree or order
directing promotion or consideration for promotion of civil servants and payment of salaries
and allowances consequent upon such promotion shall be reviewed and orders made in
accordance with the provisions of this Act.
12. Repeal:- The Karnataka State Civil Services (Allottees) (Special) Rules, 1971
are hereby repealed.
13. Savings:- Save as provided in section 11, nothing in this Act shall be deemed
to affect the operation of the provisions of the Constitution of India in relation to the
determination of the condition of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of
the State of Karnataka.
KARNATAKA ACT No.25 OF 1982
(First published in the Karnataka Gazette Extraodinary on the Twenty-seventh day

of July, 1982)
THE KARNATAKA STATE CIVIL SERVICES (REGULATION OF PROMOTION, PAY AND

PENSION) (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1981.
(Received the assent of the Governor on the Twenty-second day of July 1982)
An Act further to amend the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion
, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973.
Whereas it is expedient further to amend the Karnataka State Civil Services
(Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1974) for the
purposes hereinafter appearing;
Be it enacted by the Karnataka State Legislature in the Thirty-Second Year of the

Republic of India as follows:-
1. Short title and commencement:- (1) This Act may be called the Karnataka
State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension (Amendment)
Act, 1981.
(2) It shall come into force at once.
(Section 2 is incorporated in the Principal Act)
(3) Amendment of Karnataka Act No.40 of 1976:- In the Karnataka Service
Examinations Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 40 of 1976) in section 1, for sub-section
(2) the following sub-section shall be and shall be deemed always to have been
substituted, namely:-
“(2) This section and all the other sections except section 8 shall be deemed to
have come into force on the First day of November 1956. Section 8 shall be
deemed to have come into force on the eleventh day of April 1974.”
THE KARNATAKA STATE CIVIL SERVICES
(REGULATION OF PROMOTION, PAY AND PENSION) RULES, 1978.

THE KARNATAKA STATE CIVIL SERVICES

(REGULATION OF PROMOTION, PAY AND PENSION)
RULES, 1978.
ARRANGEMENT OF RULES
Rules:
1. Title and commencement.
2. Promotion.
THE KARNATAKA STATE CIVIL SERVICES (REGULATION OF PROMOTION, PAY AND

PENSION) RULES, 1978.
(First published in the Karnataka Gazette on the Fifteenth

day of June, 1978)
Notification No. DPAR 9 IFP 76

Bangalore, dated 5th June, 1978
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 9A read with clause (a) of sub-section
(1) of section 3 of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and
Pension) Act, 1973 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1974) the Government of Karnataka hereby makes
the following rules, namely:-
1. Title and commencement:- (1) These rules may be called the Karnataka State
Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Rules, 1978.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. Promotion:- Promotion of a civil servant may be made with effect from a

retrospective date:-
(1) if his claim for promotion:-
1[(a) was withheld on account of disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecution or
both pending against him and he is exonerated or acquitted subsequently; or]
(1Substituted by Notification No. DPAR 4 IFA 80 dated 27-5-1981 (w.e.f. 15-6-1978) GSR
137 Karnataka Gazette dated 4-6-1981)
(b) was not considered on the ground that he was working in some
other department on deputation or otherwise; or
(c) was not considered on the ground that he was wrongly or incorrectly described
in the provisional or final inter-State Seniority List or gradation list; 2[or]
2
[(d) was passed over on account of adverse remarks in his Confidential Reports
which were expunged subsequently.]
(2) If, while operating the gradation list or the provisional Inter-state Seniority List
or any other Inter-State Seniority List not being a final one, he was not considered for
1
promotion for no justifiable reason [x x x]; or
(3) If, while being eligible according to his seniority in the list that was in force and
otherwise fit for promotion according to Cadre and Recruitment Rules he had only been
placed in, independent charge of the post by the competent authority and has discharged
the duties of the said post.
(1 Deleted by Notification No. DPAR 4 IFP 80 dated 27-5-1981 (w.e.f.

15-6-1978) GSR 137 Karnataka Gazette dated 4-6-1981.)
(2 Inserted by Notification No. DPAR 2 IFP 83 dated 24-10-1983 (w.e.f.

8-11-1984) GSR 256, P 327 Karnataka Gazette dated 8-11-1984.)
* * * * *
PLEASE SEE THE CONTENTS OF THE

FOLLOWING STATEMENTS PERTAINING
TO ANNEXURE NOs. 8 TO 12 IN THE XLS
FORMAT AT THE END OF THE REPORT.
Annexure-13
Copy of :
NOTE ON IMPLEMENTATION OFG.O.Ms.No.610 GA (SPF.A)

DEPARTMENT DATED : 30-12-1985 RELATING TO PARA (14) IN
RESPECT OF 13 DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEERS OF P.H. & M.E.
DEPARTMENT.
On the issue regarding repatriation of Deputy Executive Engineers to

Zone I to IV, it is brought to the notice of the House committee that
Government vide G.O.Ms.No.128 M.A., dated 11-02-1981 issued orders for
creation of 13 supernumerary posts of Deputy Executive Engineers in Zone VII
so that JEs/Supervisors belonging to Zone VII are not deprived of the
opportunity for promotions in their regular channel even prior to the
representation made by T.N.G.O. Union. Action is also being taken to give
consequential benefits to the effect persons of Zone VII duly reviewing the
Deputy Executive Engineer panel from 18-10-1975 onwards.
Accordingly, a committee was also constituted vide Memo

No.9365/C1/2001-9 M.A., dated 28-03-2002 for review of adhoc panels of
Deputy Executive Engineers, which reviewed all the adhoc panels based on
G.O.Ms.No.77 M.A., dated 04-03-1997 as per the Supreme Court directions in
C.A. No.2020-29/87 in G. S. Venkat Reddy‟s case and the provisional seniority
list was issued vide Proceedings No.5499/1295/CS1/2003 dated 10-01-2003
and also further follow up action is being taken in due course.
Sd/-
Engineer-in-Chief
Public Health
Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad.
* * *
CONTD…..
NOTE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF G.O.Ms.No.610 G.A.(SPF-A)

DEPARTMENT DATED 30-12-1985 RELATING TO PARA (14) IN RESPECT
OF 13 DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEERS, PH&ME DEPARTMENT
***
The 13 Junior Engineers and Supervisors who belongs to local cadre of

Zone I to Zone IV have been allocated to Zone VII vide G.O.Ms.No.509 M.A.,
dated 17-08-1977 and G.O.Ms.No.697, M.A., dated 14-11-1977.
The Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.610, G.A.D.,

dated 30-12-1985 in Para (14) as “the question of repatriation of 13 Dy.
Executive Engineers of the Public Health Department working in the city of
Hyderabad to Zones I to IV will be considered by the Department concerned
keeping in view the provision of the Presidential Order,” on the representation
of President, Telangana N.G.Os Union, on Six Point Formula relating to all the
Departments.
The Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.245, M.A.,

dated 20-05-1986 and G.O.Ms.No.660, M.A., dated 08-11-1989 duly reviewing
the allotment of Junior Engineers and Supervisors and the Government have
created 13 supernumary posts of Dy. Executive Engineers in Zones-VII for
balanced cadre and maintain the zonal status in G.O.Ms.No.128 M.A., dated 11-
02-1981. Hence, there is no violation of Presidential Order (SPF). The benefit
of effected persons in Zone-VII has been considered in the review of Dy.
Executive Engineers promotions in Zone-wise duly reviewing the adhoc panels
of Dy. Executive Engineers while integrating the common seniority list of Dy.
Executive Engineers of all zones.
* * *
Annexure-14
Government of Andhra Pradesh

ABSTRACT
PUBLIC SERVICES – State Services – Public Health and Municipal

Engineering Services – Panel of Junior Engineers, Supervisors and
Draftsman fit for promotion as Assistant Engineers in Zone 7 approved
Creation 13 Supernumary posts of Assistant Engineers – Orders – Issued.
--------------------------------------------
Housing, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department
G.O.Ms.No.128, M.A., Dated: 11.2.1981

Read the following:-
1. G.O.Ms.No.1, M.A., dated 1.1.81.

2. From the Chief Engineer (Public Health) D.O.letter
No.485/C/CS3/76, dated 9.1.81.
ORDER:
In the G.O. 1st read above orders were issued approving a panel of
Junior Engineers / Supervisors and Draughtsman fit for promotion as
Assistant Engineers in Zone 7, as recommended by the Chief Engineer
(Public Health) pending selection of candidates by the Departmental
Promotion Committee. The Government have now decided that in order to
accommodate the 12 Junior Engineers and Supervisors against whom
R.P.No.69/78 was fled alleging wrong allotment to Zone 7, 13 supernumary
posts of Assistant Engineers may be created and persons who are allotted
to Zone 7 may be promoted in regular vacancies with equal No. of Junior
Engineers/Supervisors being kept in abeyance until the case is finally
disposed off by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.
2. Sanction is accordingly accorded for creation of 13 supernumary

posts of Assistant Engineers in the scale of Rs.1050-40-1200-50-1600 for a
period of one year from the date of filling up of the posts or till the
necessity ceases whichever is earlier. The Government also direct that
equal No. of posts of Supervisors/Junior Engineers be kept in abeyance
until the case is finally disposed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal.
3. This order issued with the concurrence of the Finance and Planning
(Finance) vide U.O.No.337/S(F&P) dated 23.1.81.
K.Madhava Rao
Secretary to Government
Forwarded to:
The Chief Engineer (Public Health), Hyderabad
The Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
The Pay and Accounts Officer, Hyderabad
Copy to Finance and Planning (Expn.HMA&UD) Department
Copy to Stock File.
S/Cs.
// by order //
Sd/
Section Officer

ABSTRACT
Six Point Formula – Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of

Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975 – Allotment
of Junior Engineers/Supervisors in the Public Health and Municipal
Engineering Department – Implementation of Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal Orders in R.Ps.69/78, 1250/79 and 560/80 and
High Court Order in Contempt Case No.273/85 in W.P.No.9447/85 – Orders
– Issued.
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
HOUSING, MUNICIPAL ADMN., & URBAN DEVELOPMENT (C1) DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms.No.245, M.A., Dated: 20th May, 1986

Read the following:-
1. G.O.Ms.No.329, M.A., Dt.20-5-77.
2. G.O.Ms.No.509, M.A., Dt.17-8-77.
3. G.O.Ms.Nos.441 to 474, M.A., Dated 31-3-79.
4. Order of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal
12-12-82 in R.P.No.69/78.
In R.P.No.1250/79.
24-9-84 in R.P.No.560/80
7. Order of Andhra Pradesh High Court dated.21-2-86
In Contempt Case No.273/85 in W.P.No.9447/85.
O R D E R:
Consequent on the introduction of the Andhra Pradesh Public
Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct
Recruitment) Order, 1975, the Scheme for Organisation of Local Cadres in
respect of Junior Engineers and Supervisors in the Public Health and
Municipal Engineering Department was approved by the Government in
G.O.Ms.No.329, M.A., Dt.20-5-1977. According to these orders, the
category of Junior Engineers and Supervisors was organised into seven
zonal cadres viz., I to VII (including a separate cadre for the City of
Hyderabad). The Allotment Committee constituted for the allotment of
persons working as Junior Engineers and Supervisors among Seven Zones
met on 12-7-1977 and made necessary recommendations to the
Government. Government accepted the recommendations and allotted the
personnel to various zones in G.O.ms.NO.509, M.A., Dated 17-8-1977.
2. As provided in the Presidential Order, the representations of certain

Junior Engineers and Supervisors against their allotments were also
considered by the Allotment Committee on 4-4-1978, and further

recommendations made to the Government. Government accepted the
recommendations and issued necessary orders allotting persons to various
Zones in G.O.Ms.No.441 to 474 M.A., dated 31-3-1979.
3. Of the Junior Engineers and Supervisors so allotted the following 13

were among the personnel either allotted or re-allotted to Zone-VII in
G.O.Ms.No.509, M.A., dated 17-8-1977 and G.O.ms.No.442, M.A., Dated
31-3-1979.
1. Sri M.Nagendra, Junior Engineer.
2. Sri C.V.Narayanan, Junior Engineer.
3. Sri G.V.Raghava Rao, Junior Engineer.
4. Sri N.K.V.Seshagiri Rao, Junior Engineer.
5. Sri V.V.Annayya Sastry, Junior Engineer.
6. Sri U.V.Rama Rao, Junior Engineer.
7. Sri C.Subramanyam, Junior Engineer.
8. Sri K.Satyam, Junior Engineer.
9. Sri B.S.Ramanadha Reddy, Junior Engineer (Re-allotted).
10. Sri B.V.Somayajulu, Supervisor
11. Sri M.Satyanarayana, Supervisor.
12. Sri C.Mallikarjuna Rao, Supervisor.
13. smt.Siroratnamma, Supervisor.
4. During January, 1978, Sri P.Manmohan, Supervisor and 8 others
challenged in the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal through
R.p.No.69/78, the allotment of the above mentioned 13 personnel to zone
VII on the plea that they do not belong to zone VII and that the services
rendered by them in the office of the Head of the Department or any Major
Development Projects should not be taken into consideration for the
purpose of allotment and that they should be allotted to other zones where
there are vacancies.
5. During August, 1979, Sri V.V.Annayya Sastry and another who are
among these 13 personnel mentioned above and who were also othe
respondents in r.P.No.69/78, filed another R.P. in the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal bearing No.1250/79contending that their allotment
to Zone VII is correct and that they should be promoted to the catgory of
Assistant Engineers accordingly.
6. During 1980, Sri M.V.Rama Murthy and 3 other Junior Engineers who
were allotted to Zone II and III filed a R.P. in the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal through R.P.No.560/80, seeking directions to the
Government to review all allotments and re-allocate personnel to the posts
of Junior Engineers in Zones I to VII, in accordance with Clause-4(2)(b) of
the Presidential order and effect promotions in accordance with such re-
allotment and re-adjustment of seniority. Their contention was that balance
cadres as per clause 4(2)(b) of the Presidential Order were not constituted.
7. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal disposed of the 3 R.Ps.

mentioned above as detailed below:-
(1) Order dated 12-12-1982 in R.P.Nos.69/78 and 1250/79
(a) Set aside the allotment of the 13 respondents to zone VII.
(b) Directed the Government to re-examine the allotment of the 13

respondents to zone VI in the light of the principles laid down in
(c) The contention of the petitioners that the services rendered by the
13 respondents in the offices of the Heads of the Departments
and Major Development Projects should not be counted for their
allotment under Para-4 of the Presidential Order, has not been
accepted by the Tribunal.
(2) Order dated 24-09-1984 in R.P.No. 560/80.
Remitting the case to Government to examine the issue of the

balance cadre, in the light of the allegations made by the Petitioner, in the
R.P and arrive at just and fair discussion within a period of 3 months, and
to maintain status-quo till then.
8. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in it‟s order dated 21-2-1986 in

contempt Case No.273/85 in W.P.No.9447/85 directed the Government to
finalise the issue of allotment within three months.
9. To implement the directions of the Tribunal as mentioned above, the

Government constituted an “Allotment Committee” under sub-paragraph
(3) of paragraph 4 of the Presidential Order to advise the Government in
the matte of creating the balanced cadres.
10. The “Allotment Committee” examined the entire issue of allotments

and tendered its advice in the matter.
11. In pursuance of the directions of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative

Tribunal and the High Court in the R.Ps and the Contempt Case mentioned
above and keeping in view the advice tendered by the Allotment
Committee, the Government hereby allot the Junior Engineer/Supervisors
mentioned below to the Zones noted against each in Column (3) in
modification of the zones to which they were already allotted with a view to
create the balanced cadres.
Sl.No. Name of the Junior Engineer To which Zone to

zone which now
already allotted in
allotted modification
of the zone
mentioned in
column
(1) (2) (3)
(1) Sri M. Nagendra, J.E., VII VII
(2) Sri C.V. Raghava Rao, J.E., VII VII
(3) Sri G.V.Raghava Rao, J.E., VII VII
(4) Sri N.K.V.Seshadri Rao, J.E., VII VII
(5) Sri V.V.Annayya Sastry, J.E., VII VII
(6) Sri C.V.Rama Rao, J.E., VII VII
(7) Sri C.Subrahmanyam, J.E., VII VII
(8) Sri K. Satyam VII VII
(9) Sri B.S.Ramanandha Reddy, J.E., VII VII
(10) Sri D.V.Somayajulu, Supervisor VII VII
(11) Sri M. Satyanarayana, Supervisor VII IV
(12) Sri C.Mallikarjuna Rao, Supervisor VII VII
(13) Smt. Siriratnamma, Supervisor VII VII
(14) Sri V.Janardhana Rao, J.E., II VII
(15) Sri V.Ramachandra Rao, J.E., III II
(16) Sri R.Ramchandra Rao, J.E., I VII
(17) Sri Ch.Ramana Rao, J.E., II I
(18) Sri V.Subba Rao, J.E., VII V
(19) Sri R.Narasimha Prasad, J.E., IV VII
(20) Sri M.V.Rama Murthy, J.E., III VII
(21) Sri V.Venkateswara Rao, J.E., III VII
(22) Sri M.Omprakash, J.E., IV VII
(23) Sri Mohd. Faizulla Khan, J.E., VII VI
(24) Sri K.B.V.Krishna Murthy, J.E., II I
(25) Sri M.A.V.Prasada Rao, J.E., V VII
(26) Sri N.Satyananda Rao, J.E., II III
(27) Sri B.Divakar Rao, J.E., V VII
(28) Sri Y.Ramakrishna, J.E., V I
(29) Sri P.V.Seshaiah, J.E., III IV
(30) Sri M.Satyanrayana, J.E., V VII
(31) Sri Mohd. Sadet Ali, J.E., VI VII
12. Sri M.Satyanarayana, Supervisor who is now allotted to

zone IV in t his order will not be transferred to zone_IV
immediately till the R.P.No.2068/85 is finally disposed of or the
interim order thereon is vacated.
E.A.S. SARMA.
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
To
The individuals through Chief Engineer (Public Health),
Hyderabad.
The Chief Engineer (Public Health), Hyderabad.
Copy to:
1. The Registrar, Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (with
covering letter.)
2. The Registrar, Andhra Pradesh High Court, (with covering
letter)
3. The Government Pleaders Home (5), Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad
4. The Government Pleader Housing and Endowments, Andhra
Pradesh High Court, Hyderabad.
5. The General Administration (SPF-A) Department
Copy to Law (G1) Department
//FORWARDED BY ORDER//
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER.
Government of Andhra Pradesh

ABSTRACT
ESTABLISHMENT – Public Health & Municipal Engineering Services –

Revised Seniority Lists of Assistant Engineers and Assistant Executive
Engineers – Approved – Orders – Communicated.
--------------------------------------------
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT (C1) DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms.No.77, M.A. Dated 4th March, 1997

Read the following:
1). Judgement of Supreme Court of India, dt.16.7.1993 in
C.A.No.2027-29 of 1987 with C.A.No.26095 of 1987 T.A.
No.15 of 1989.
2). Judgement dated 16.1.1996, of Supreme Court of India

in C.A.No.1809-12 of 1996.
3). Order of Supreme Court of India, dt.7-10-96 in I.A.No.1

in W.P.No.367 of 1988.
4). G.O.Ms.No.606,M.A. & U.D. (C1) Department, dt.14.11.1996
5). From the Resident Commissioner, Government of Andhra

Pradesh, New Delhi, D.O.Lr.No.Rc/SO-LC/H&MA-78/97,
Dated 4.2.1997.
6). From the Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No.388 of

1997 out of Spl.Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.18722/95 filed
by P.B.Chowdary and another dated 15-1-1997.
7). From the Engineer-in-Chief (Public Health), Hyderabad

Lr.No.2288/E1(1)/96, Dated 28-2-1997.
***
O R D E R:
The Supreme Court of India in the judgement rendered on 16-1-1996

in C.A.No.1809-12 of 1996 has directed the State Government to review
the seniority list that has been prepared to ensure that it is in strict
conformity with the G.S.Venkat Reddy‟s case and to place the seniority list
after review before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal to examine
it only with a view to ensuring that it is in accordance with the direction
contained in G.S.Venkat Reddy‟s case. Accordingly, the Engineer-in-Chief
(Public Health), Hyderabad, has furnished the seniority
lists according to the parameters issued in the Government

Memo.No.21210/C1/95 M.A., Dated 6-3-1996, keeping in view the
directions given by the Supreme Court in Para 15 of G.S.Venkat Reddy‟s
case. The Seniority Lists have been filed before the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal in M.A.No.1991 of 1996 in O.A.No.5306 of 1993 on
6-8-1996.
2. While the seniority list is under consideration in the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal, the Supreme Court of India in its order dated
7-10-1996 in I.A. No.1 in W.p.No.367/88 has directed that the State
Government shall ensure that the determination of the seniority list is
completed as per this Court‟s order in Writ Petition (Civil) No.367/88 read
with the order in Civil appeal Nos.1809-12/96 dated January 16, 1996
regardless of any matter pending anywhere in any Court or Tribunal within
a period of One Month from that day.
3. In view of the above orders of the Hon‟ble Supreme of the matter

approved the Seniority Lists of Assistant Engineers/Assistant Executive
Engineers as completed and placed before the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal and issued orders in G.O.ms.No.606 M.A., dated
14-11-1996.
4. Aggrieved by these orders Sri B.Chinnappa Reddy & Others have filed
contempt petition No.579-582/96 in C.a.No.1809-12/96 impleading Chief
Secretary to Government, Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal
Administration and Urban Development Department and Engineer-in-Chief
(Public Health) as Respondents. Necessary Counter Affidavits explaining
various circumstances have been filed by the Respondents. The
Respondents have also appeared before the Supreme Court on 20-1-1997.
5. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in its order, dated

20-1-1997 in the above Contempt case has disposed of the Contempt with
a direction to finalise the seniority lists in accordance with the judgement,
dated 15-1-1997.
6. The Supreme Court in its judgement, dated 15-1-1997 in Civil Appeal

No.388 of 1997, filed by Sri P.B.Chowdary and another, have clarified that
the judgement in G.S.Venkat Reddy‟s case (1993 SUPPL.(3) SCC 425) will
stand modified by extending the benefit of Diwakar‟s Case (1982) to all the
direct recruits irrespective of whether they were a party or not in the
Diwakar‟s case (1982).
7. In pursuance of Supreme Court of India‟s orders, dated 15-1-1997,

the Engineer-in-Chief (Public Health), Hyderabad, in D.o.Letter
No.31871/C1/96-7 M.A., Dated 24-2-1997, was requested to revise the
seniority lists as per the decision given by the Supreme Court in the
Contempt Case and keeping in view the guidelines issued in D.O.Letter
No.21210/C1/95 M.A., dated. 20-7-1996.
8. The Engineer-in-Chief (Public Health), Hyderabad, vide his letter 7th

read above, has accordingly furnished the revised seniority lists of Assistant
Engineers/Assistant Executive Engineers.
9. The Government after careful examination of the matter and in

supersession of the orders issued in the G.O.fourth read above, approve
the revised seniority lists of Assistant Engineers/Assistant Executive
Engineers as furnished by the Engineer-in-Chief (Public Health) and as
directed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in its judgement, dated 15-1-1997,
referred to above.
10. The Engineer-in-Chief (Public Health), Hyderabad, is directed to take

further necessary action in the matter.
C.D.ARHA,
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
To
The Engineer-in-Chief (Public Health), Hyderabad
// FORWARDED: BY ORDER //
Sd/-
Section Officer
PROCEEDINGS
issued by

PROCEEDINGS
INDEX
No Proceeding Page Nos.
1 Lr.No.11/OMC/NLG/2/2001, Dt.17-01-2002. 90-91
2 Lr.No.11/OMC/NLG/2/2001, Dt.17-01-2002 92-93
3 Lr.No.11/OMC/ADL/1/01, Dt.28-01-2002. 94-95
4 Lr.No.11/OMC/ADL/9/01, Dt.28-01-2002 96-97
5 Proc. No.11/OMC/NAL/A.1/2001, Dt.29-01-2002 98-102
6 Lr.No.11/OMC/KRNR/1/2001-3, Dt.20-02-2002 103
7 Lr.No.11/OMC/KRNR/2/2001-3, Dt.20-02-2002 104
8 Proc. No.11/OMC/ADL/4/2001, Dt.05-03-2002 105-107
9 Lr.No.6/48/OMC.A/2001, Dt.05-03-2002 108
10 Lr.No.06/89/OMC/SPF/A/2001, Dt.13-03-2002 109
11 Lr.No.11/OMC/Medak/1/2001, Dt.14-03-2002 110-112
12 Lr.No.11/OMC/KRNR/2/2001, Dt.16-03-2002 113
13 Lr.No.06/6/OMC(A)/2001-2, Dt.21-03-2002 114
14 Proc. No.06/77/OMC(SPF)/2001, Dt.10-04-2002 115-117
15 Lr.No.11/OMC/NZBD/6/2001, Dt.10-04-2002 118-119
16 Lr.No.11/OMC/Medak-3/2001, Dt.11-04-2002 120-124
17 Lr.No.11/OMC/WRL-15/2001, Dt.12-04-2002 125
18 Proc.No.11/OMC/WRL-2/2001, Dt.16-04-2002 126-127
19 Lr.No.11/OMC/Medak/1/2001, Dt.18-04-2002 128-129
….. Contd.
20 Lr.No.11/OMC/Medak/1/2001, Dt.18-04-2002. 130
21 Proc.No.06/73/OMC.A/2001/, Dt.24-04-2002 131-133
22 Proc.No.11/OMC/WG.Dist/1/2002, Dt.09-05-2002 134-136
23 Proc.No.06/82/OMC/SPF.A/2001, Dt.10-05-2002 137-138
24 Lr.No.11/OMC/WRL-10/2002, Dt.20-05-2002 139
25 Lr.No.6/5/OMC/SPF.A/2001, Dt.06-06-2002 140
26 Lr.No.11/OMC/WRL-5/2001, Dt.01-07-2002 141
27 Lr.No.11/OMC/NLG/1/2002, Dt.19-08-2002 142
28 Proc. No.6/67/OMC-SPF/2001, Dt.04-09-2002 143-144
29 Proc. No.06/116/OMC/SPF/2001, Dt.04-09-2002 145-149
30 Lr.No.6/33/OMC(A)/2001-3, Dt.17-09-2002 150
31 Lr.No.11/OMC/NLG/2/2001, Dt.09-10-2002 151
32 Lr.No.3/OMC/A/2002-3, Dt.18-10-2002 152
33 Lr.No.3/OMC/A/2001-3, Dt.18-10-2002 153
34 Lr.No.06/52/OMC/A.1/2001, Dt.06-11-2002 154
35 Lr.No.11/OMC/KNL/2/2001, Dt.07-11-2002 155
36 Lr.No.06/68/OMC-A/2001, Dt.07-11-2002 156
37 Lr.No.11/OMC/K/2002, Dt.22-11-2002 157
38 Lr.No.06/61/OMC-B.A1/2001, Dt.23-11-2002 158
39 Lr.No.06/14/OMC/SPF/BA.1/2001, Dt.26-11-2002 159
40 Proc. No.06/114/OMC-A/2001, Dt.26-12-2002 160-164
….. Contd.
41 Lr.No.06/80/OMC(A1)/2001-4, Dt.02-01-2003 165-167
42 Lr.No.06/47/OMC/SPF/B.1/2001, Dt.04-01-2003 168
43 Proc. No.OMC/06/AEs/A1/2001-8, Dt.09-01-2003 169-173
44 Proc.No.6/62/OMC/A2/Seri/2001, Dt.19-02-2003 174-176
45 Proc.No.6/49/OMC/A.2/I&PR/2001,Dt.19-02-2003 177-178
46 Lr.No.6/11/OMC/A2/2001-4, Dt.19-02-2003 179
47 Lr.No.06/64/OMC(A.1)/2001-4, Dt.22-02-2003 180
48 Lr.No.11/OMC/NZBD/4/B1/2001, Dt.10-03-2003 181
49 Lr.No.11/OMC/NZBD/8/B1/2001, Dt.10-03-2003 182
50 Lr.No.11/OMC/NZBD/2/B1/2001, Dt.10-03-2003 183
51 Proc. No.06/15/OMC/A2/2001-5, Dt.20-03-2003 184-185
52 Proc. No.6/15/OMC/A3/Ind. Dept./2001-5,

Dt.20-03-2003 186-187
53 Proc.No.11/OMC/A2/WRL-6/2001, Dt.24-3-2003 188-189
54 Proc. No.11/OMC/ANTP/B1/2001, Dt.24-3-2003 190-191
55 Lr.No.11/OMC/MBNR/3/B1/01, Dt.08-04-2003 192-194
56 Lr.No.11/OMC(B1)/01/LET&F/2003, Dt.1-5-2003 195-197
57 Proc. No.06/83/OMC/B1/01, Dt.02-05-2003 198-200
58 Proc.No.11/OMC/I&CAD/A1/2001, Dt.21-5-2003 201-203
59 Lr.No.11/OMC/WRL-16/2001, Dt.30-05-2003 204
60 Proc. No.06/49/OMC/B1/2001, Dt.09-06-2003 205-215
61 Proc. No.06/68/OMC/A.1/2003, Dt.17-07-2003 216-218

….. Contd.
62 Proc. No.6/51/OMC/A2/2001-4, Dt.01-08-2003 219-220
63 Proc. No.06/88/OMC(A-1)/2003, Dt.30-08-2003 221-226
64 Lr.No.11/OMC/MA & UD/2002, Dt.30-08-2003 227-232
65 Proc. No.11/OMC/PRE-B.2/2002, Dt.05-09-2003 233-236
66 Proc. No.06/63/OMC/B.1/2001, Dt.15-09-2003 237-240
67 Proc.No.11/OMC/MA&UD/B2/2002, Dt.22-9-2003 241-243
* * *
1
ONE MAN COMMISSION (SPF)
Lr.No.11/OMC/NALGONDA/2/2001, Dated: 17-1-2002
From
J.M.Girglani, IAS., (Retd.)
Room No: 320,
„K‟ Block, IInd Floor,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
1.The Collector,
Nalgonda District,
Nalgonda (w.e)
2. The Project Officer,

M.A.D.A & P.T.G,
O/o the Modified Area Development Approach (MADA)
And Primitive Tribal Groups (PTGs)
Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.
3. The Special Gr. Dy. Collector/Project Director,

DRDA,
O/o the Project Director,
District Rural Development Agency,
Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.
Sir,
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Minutes of the meeting held by OMC with officials of Nalgonda
District and representatives of Unions and individual petitioners as Warangal
on 30.07.2001 in O/o the Collector, Warangal – Minutes communicated –
Reg.
Ref: 1. From the OMC (SPF) D.O.Lr.No. 11/OMC/Nalgonda/2/2001, dt: 30.08.2001.

2. From the OMC (SPF) LR.No.11/OMC/Nalgonda/2/2001, dt 30.08.01
3. From the Project Officer MADA &PTG, Nalgonda Lr.Rc.No.B1/6/2001, dated
27.09.2001
4. From the Spl. Grade Dy. Collector/Project Director, DRDA, Nalgonda
Lr.No.A1/1368/2001, dated 12.11.2001.
* * *
I am to invite your attention to the references 3 rd & 4th cited, and to inform you
that the Project Officer, MADA & PTG and the Spl. Gr. Dy. Collector/Project Director, DRDA
has furnished their replies on the minutes of the meeting held on 30.07.2001 with regard
to point about the appointment made in DRDA and MADA against the rule of reservation.
2. I am of the opinion that both the appointments viz. Kumari D. Manemma

appointed as Asst. Project Officer (Women), Nalgonda native of Chittoor district in MADA
and Smt. P. Shylin, native of East Godavari district appointed as APO on contract basis
during the year 1995 on consolidated pay are prima-facie and clearly shows the violation
of the Presidential Order, as these are direct appointments shall be follow the Presidential
Orders.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
for One Man Commission (SPF)
Copy to: The OMC (A-Section) to include the cases under Para 5 (1) of G.O.Ms.610
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2

Lr.No.11/OMC/NALGONDA/2/2001, Dated: 17-1-2002
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
The Secretary to Government (R&E)
Finance (Fin) Department,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad (W.e)
Sir,
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Minutes of the meeting held by OMC with officials of Nalgonda
District and representatives of Unions and individual petitioners at Warangal
on 30.07.2001 in O/o the Collector, Warangal – Reg.
Ref: 1. From the OMC (SPF) LR.No.11/OMC/Nalgonda/2/2001, dt 30.08.01.

2. From the Project Officer MADA & PTG, Nalgonda
Lr.Rc.No.B1/6/2001, dated 27.09.2001
3. From the Spl. Grade Dy. Collector/Project Director, DRDA, Nalgonda
Lr.No.A1/1368/2001, dated 12.11.2001.
* * *
I am to invite your attention to the references cited, and to inform you that during
the Meeting with officials and representatives of the Unions etc. of Nalgonda District it has
been observed that non-locals are working on regular appointment in DRDA/MADA of
Nalgonda district against the rule of local reservation. Hence, the remarks of the Project
Officer, DRDA and MADA has been offered in the reference first cited.
2. The Project Officer, MADA & PTG, Nalgonda has reported in the letter 2 nd cited that
Kumari D.Manemma, Asst. P.O (Women), Nalgonda was appointed on consolidated pay
under the contingent appointment and she belongs to Chittoor District.
3. The Spl. Gr. Dy. Collector/Project Director, DRDA, Nalgonda has reported in the
letter 3rd cited that one Smt P. Shylin, who belongs to East Godavari district (non-local)
was appointed on contract basis as APO during 1995 with consolidated emoluments for
a period of one year and thereafter she is continuing in service as per the orders of the
Hon‟ble High Court. The matter is pending in the Court.
4. While examining the issue, it seems by the way there is violation of Act 2/94 in the
appointment made. Also contract appointment seems to have been made without sanction
by Finance Department.
5. I therefore request you to take a view with regard to the violation of Act 2/94 and
also whether the contract appointment can be made without sanction by Government i.e
Finance Department.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
for ONE MAN COMMISSION (SPF)
Copy to: The Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda.
The Project Officer, MADA & PTG. O/o the Modified Area Development Approach
(MADA) and Primitive Tribal Groups (PTGs) Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.
The Spl. Grade Dy. Collector/Project Director, DRDA, O/o the Project Director,
district Rural Development Agency, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

ONE MAN COMMISSION (SPF) 3
Lr.No.11/OMC/Adilabad/1/01, Dated: 28-01-2002
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri P. Satyanarayana Reddy,
Dy. Health Education Officer,
Leprosy control Uniit,
Adilabad, Adilabad District.
The Director of Health (Special),

Koti,
Hyderabad.
Sir,
Sub: Representation of Sri P. Satyanarayana Reddy, Dy. Health Education Officer,
Leprosy Control Unit, Adilabad Zone – V, Telangana Region for rectification of
injustice happened – Request – Reg.
Ref: 1. From Sri P. Satyanrayana Reddy, Dy. Health Education Officer, Leprosy
Control Unit, Adilabad representation dated 10.07.2001.
2. From the Director of Health (Spl) Lr.Rc.No.18627/Lep.B/2001,
dt:23.10.2001 and 28.12.2001.
3. OMC Lr.No.11/OMC/Adilabad/01/2001, dt. 12.12.2001.
* * *
I invite your attention to the representation 1 st cited, wherein the individual

requested the Commission to rectify injustice done in allotment of Zone-V and also
requested to re-adjustment in Zone-VI or Hyderabad Zone.
2. The Commission has received a report from the Director of Health (Spl.) that the
individual appointed as Non Medical Assistant as per merit and communal roaster. On the
receipt of the report, the Commission has conducted the personal hearing on 18.12.2001.
3. On the personal hearing and the further report of the Director of Health (Spl.), the
Commission has reviewed the entire issue and it is found that the allotment is being
questioned by the individual after almost quarter of a century and the candidate had
selected (on merit) quota. The Commission has come to a conclusion that in the absence
of any other evidence to the contrary it accepts the version of the Department that your
selection was made on merit. Hence the Commission agrees with the view of the
Department.
4. In the result the representation is rejected as warranting no intervention of the

Commission.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
4
Lr.No.11/OMC/Adilabad/9/01, Dated: 28-01-2002
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri M. Ranga,
Assistant Para Medical Officer,
Leprosy Control Unit,
Near Local Fund Office,
Vidyanagar Colony,
Adilabad – 504 001.
The Director of Health (Special),

Koti,
Hyderabad.
Sir,
Sub: Representation of Sri M. Ranga, Assistant Para Medical Officer (Non Medical
Assistant) – Leprosy Control Unit, Adilabad, Zone-V, Request for justice –
Reg.
Ref: 1. From of Sri M. Ranga, Assistant Para Medical Officer (Non Medical Assistant),
Leprosy Control Unit, Adilabad, representation dated 18.12.2001.
2. From the Director of Health (Spl.) Lr.Rc.No.18627/Lep.B/2001, dt: 23.10.2001 and
28.12.2001.
3. OMC Lr.No.11/OMC/Adilabad/9/2001, dt. 04.01.2002.
4. OMC Lr.No.11/OMC/Adilabad/9/2001, dt.05.01.2002.
* * *
I invite your attention to the representation 1 st cited, wherein the individual

requested the Commission to rectify in allotment of Zone-V and inter cadre transfer from
Zone-V to Zone-I.
2. In the reference 2nd cited, the Commission has received a report from the Director
of Health (Spl.) that the individual was selected in non-local quota. On the receipt of the
report, the Commission has conducted the personal hearing with you on 11.01.2002 at
12.00 noon.
3. On the personal hearing and the further report received from the Director of Health
(Spl.), the Commission has reviewed the entire issue and it is found that the allotment is
being questioned by the individual after almost quarter of a century and the candidate had
selected “in the non-local” (i.e merit) quota duly verifying the study certificates. The
Commission has come to a conclusion that in the absence of any other evidence to the
contrary it accepts the version of the Department that your selection was made on merit
quota (non-local). Hence the Commission agrees with the view of the Department.
4. In the result the representation is rejected as warranting no intervention by the

Commission.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
5
Proceeding No.11/OMC/NAL/A.1/2001, dt.29-01-2002.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 18TH JANUARY 2002 AT 3.30 P.M. IN

THE CHAMBERS OF ONE MAN COMMISSION WITH OFFICERS OF THE
HANDLOOMS & TEXTILES DEPT.
***
Present :
Sarvasri :
J.M. Girglani, IAS (Retd.), One Man Commission

S. Papa Rao, Joint Director, Handlooms and Textiles Department.
M. N. Rao, Deputy Director, Handlooms and Textiles Department.
Sri A. Shivraj, Petitioner.
The officers have submitted a note on the questions that were raised by the
Commission on 9-1-2002 in the meeting held with them. Along with the note, they have
filed copies of the G.O.Ms.No.394, dt. 3-5-76, G.O.Rt.No.342, dt. 6-4-88, G.O.Ms.No.1, dt.
2-1-78, G.O.Ms.No.240, dt. 7-5-86 and also a copy of the order of Sri V. Sunderesan, IAS
(Retd.), OMC (SPF.Ser) 90-2, dt. 13-8-91 giving a copy of its recommendation No. 135.
In this recommendation, the same issue was considered with regard to other similar cases.
The Commission has taken a view that although Government had distributed the 21 posts
of Inspectors of Handlooms and Textiles to all the zones including Zone V and VI, and the
government have also apportioned among different zones including zones V and VI, the
posts for the Inspectors in the office of the Head of the Department (fixing a fair share on
the basis of the instructions laid down in the Presidential Order in G.O.P.No.728, dt. 1-11-
75 at page 50 of the Guidelines Book at Para 9(b). The appointments to the posts of
Inspectors are made from two channels one is the LDCs and Typists from the districts and
another LDCs and Typists from the Head Office. The Commission has taken a view that
“when the persons from the Head Office to be appointed to a zonal post, the nativity or
their local candidature are not the criteria for such appointments. It is only their place in
the panel that is relevant for the purpose”. In the process, there is a possibility of a
person who is native of one zone being appointed as Inspector in another zone. The
other observation made by the Director of Handlooms and Textiles regarding the
promotion of persons with regard to the native zone etc is not relevant for the purpose. In
view of the above position there does not appear to be any violation of either the
Presidential Order or the instructions issued by the government in regard to the

promotions of persons of the Directorate to the local cadre posts.”
In the revised draft rules of the Department, the Commission has done away with
the posts of Inspectors. Therefore, the present case is confined only to the posts that
already existed there. This case arises out of the anomaly caused by the fact that the
Government fixed fair proportion of Inspectors posts in different zones based on the basic
strength of each zone for the posts in the Head Office also as the Director has pointed out
to the Commission at that time, this was not necessary for the promotion posts in the
Directorate. The Fair Share Principle applies only if people are taken from the district
cadres and zonal cadres either on the deputation or on transfers to the Head of the Dept.
Office. However, having earmarked for zones, even though erroneously, he has created a
vested right for the candidates of those zones to these promotional posts. Since he has
created a roaster based on the fair proportion allotted to each zone, this roaster must yield
place to panel seniority because a post earmarked in the roaster for any particular
reservation category has to take a candidate of that category only. In this particular case,
the petitioner belongs to Zone VI but has been allotted to the posts earmarked in the
roaster for Zone II. On the other hand a person of Zone II has been allotted to the post
earmarked for zone VI. In this specific case, therefore, the action is not correct. This
Commission therefore recommends that the petitioner Sri A Shiv Raj should be deemed to
be allotted to the post of Inspector in Zone VI and person allotted in Zone VI should be
deemed to be allotted to Zone II where he is local. The transfers and postings will
therefore follow this zonal allotment.
This raises a general issue as to what posts does the Fair Share Principle laid down
in detail for G.O.P.NO.728, dt. 1-11-1975 apply to. In this department, there has been an
error in applying the principle of fair share to the zones for promotion posts in the Head
Office. The Department should rectify this even though these posts are abolished.
In the general issue, it will be communicated to all the Departments that this fair
share principle applies only to persons taken to the Head Offices from the district cadres or
zones on transfer or on deputation following the detailed instructions in this G.O. with
particular reference to Para 9(B)(1).
J.M. GIRGLANI
// FORWARDED BY ORDER //
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER.

ONE MAN COMMISSION
Lr.No.11/OMC/NAL/1/2001, dt.03–06-2003
From:
J.M. Girglani, IAS., (Retd.),
One Man Commission (SPF),
„K‟ - Block, Room No.320,
2nd Floor, A.P. Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To,
The Prl. Secretary,
Industries and Commerce Department,
A.P. Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
Sir,
Sub: SPF – A.P. Public Employment (Organisation of Local cadres and Regulation of
direct Recruitment) Order 1975 – alleged violations in the implementation of
Six Point Formula in Zone-VI – Rectification of Allotment of Zone – Reg.
Ref: 1. OMC Lr.No.11/OMC/NAL/1/2001, dt.29–01-2002.

2. Further representation of A. Shivaraj, Asst. Devt. Officer on leave
dt.26-5-2003.
*****
Please refer to the Commissions letter first cited.
The OMC has been constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.270, GA (SPF-A) Department, dt.25-
6-2001 and one of the terms of reference of the Commission is that “the Commission will
receive representations from Associations / individuals where the injustice is done in the
implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610, GA (SPF-A) Department, dt.30-12-1985 and to sort out
the anomalies”. Accordingly the Commission received the representation from Sri A.
Shivaraj, Asst. Development Officer (on leave). After the hearing of the Petition on 18 th
January 2002, the Commission gave its findings and the same have been sent to your
Department vide the reference cited.
The petitioner has represented in the reference 2 nd cited for an expeditious

implementation of the Commissions findings.
Please look into the matter and arrange to direct the Commissioner of Handlooms
and Textiles to implement the findings of this Commission expeditiously, subject to the
provisions of the relevant Rules such as Service Rules, Leave Rules and Fundamental
Rules.
Further, as was already suggested in the findings of this case, in the Department of
handlooms and Textiles there has been an error in applying the Principle of “fair share to
the Zones” for promotion posts in the Head Office, in terms of para 9 (B) of GOP No.728,
GA (SPF-A) Department, dt.1-11-1975. The Department may be asked to rectify this.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
For One Man Commission (SPF)
Copy to 1. The Commissioner of Handlooms & Textiles, A.P.

2. The Petitioner.
6
Lr.No.11/OMC/KARIMNAGAR/1/2001-3, Dated: 20-02-2002
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri Ch. Srinivas,
H.No.4-3-2,
Vishwabrahmana Street,
Siricilla, Karimnagar District.
Sir,
Sub: OMC – SPF – Implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610 – Reg.
Ref: Your Representation dated 31.07.2001
* * *
The Commission has considered your representation cited, and also the report of
Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission on your case. Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal has already given its verdict in your case. The Commission cannot sit in
judgement over the verdict of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Hence, this is
not the proper forum for you to seek revision of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal orders.
2. In the result, your representation is rejected.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
7
Lr.No.11/OMC/KARIMNAGAR/6/2001-3, Dated: 20-02-2002
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri A. Mahesh Babu,
H.No.4-1-245,
Nataraj Talkies Road,
Jagityal – 505 327
Karimnagar District.
Sir,
Sub: OMC – SPF – Implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610 – Reg.
* * *
The Commission has considered your representation cited, and also the report of
Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission on your case. Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal has already given its verdict in your case. The Commission cannot sit in
judgement over the verdict of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Hence, this is
not the forum for you to seek revision of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal
orders.
2. In the result, the representation is rejected.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
8
Proceedings No.11/OMC/ADILABAD/4/2001, Dt.05-03-2002.
Proceedings of the meeting held on 5.3.2002 with officials of Sericulture

Department on the certain representations.
Present : Sri J.M.Girglani, IAS (Retd.)

***
Sri K. Noor Mohammed, Farm Foreman working in O/o. Asst. Director of
Sericulture, ITDA, Utnoor, Adilabad District to transfer him from Adilabad Dist. (Zone-V) to
Anantapur Dist. (Zone-IV) and Sri S. Ravi, Farm Foreman working in O/o. Asst. Director of
Sericulture, Karimnagar District to transfer him from Karimnagar District (Zone-V) to his
native place Hyderabad (Zone-VI). The grounds for their representations are that on
direct appointment they were posted to Districts in which they were not local.
The matter was discussed with Mr. B. Chandrashekar, Joint Director of Sericulture
from Head of Department who came along with Mr. V.V.G. Sharma, Office Superintendent.
Sri B.Chandrasekhar mentioned that in the year 1985 they had selected some
persons called from Employment Exchange with B.Sc. qualification for training at different
institutes in Bhuvaneshwar and some other places as per the number of seats allotted to
the Andhra Pradesh by the institutes. The selection of these candidates was as per merit
in the B.Sc. examination. Candidates were called for from different Employment
Exchanges where Sericulture units existed. However, in making the selection of the
candidates to the said training institutions, they have not followed district as a unit of
merit but put all the candidates together and made one common merit list on the basis of
B.Sc. examination. Accordingly the candidates were sent for training. After the training,
on the basis of the merit list in the training institutes, candidates were given postings.
Again there was no district-wise merit list. Obviously there were no candidates from
Adilabad and Karimnagar Districts sent for training. The result of that was that the
vacancies in these Districts were filled up by candidates on the basis of their merit in the
training institute but the rule of local cadre and local candidate was not observed. So only
non-local candidates were allotted. The initial mistake was that in making the selection for
training the department should have kept in view the number of vacancies in each district.
Because, the training-candidates were ultimately be appointed to these vacancies.
The merit list should have been district-wise and postings should also have been on the
basis of local candidate for local cadre. If there were any candidates from the local
Employment Exchanges of these Districts, they were obviously weeded out initially itself
by following merit in B.Sc. examination for all candidates together. It is not even very
certain whether candidates were called for from the different Employment Exchanges
where Sericulture units are located. If they did call for from different districts then the
appropriate thing was to select for training, district-wise. However, what has happened is
now ‘fait accompli’, a case of deviation from Presidential Order, intended or inadvertent
one can never know.
The petitioners were posted not in the free merit quota where non-locals can also
figure, but in total violation of the Presidential Order, which was ignored and no locals
were selected, trained or posted. However, at this stage the candidate from Anantapur
district cannot be allotted back to Anantapur district even if they take last rank in
seniority for the simple reason that according to the Joint Director there are no vacancies
available in Anantapur district. Similarly, the candidate from Hyderabad cannot be posted
to Hyderabad for the simple reason that there is no vacancy in Hyderabad District. The
Commission would not consider it right to recommend creation of supernumerary
vacancies for them. They have to remain where they are. The only recommendation the
Commission can make is that as and when there is a clear vacancy for each of them in
their respective local areas viz. Anantapur and Hyderabad respectively, they may be
posted to their local districts after verifying their educational record with regard to their
local status. In the HOD Office if there is a vacancy of a Farm Foreman then the
Karimnagar man can be posted in that vacancy after verifying his actual local status.
Since transfers would have to be sanctioned by the Government the Commission
recommends to the Government to approve these transfers as and when they are
proposed in clear vacancies. The Head of Department can enclose a copy of the
Commission‟s above proceedings while making the proposal to the Government if and
when the vacancies are available. Since this case is likely to go into the Commission‟s
Report in the category of appointments in violation of Presidential Order, the HOD may
please check up if the factual position as given by the Joint Director is correct since he was
mentioning that he was only I/c P.A. to Director and was not fully in the know of things
and the facts were actually being narrated on his behalf before the Commission by the
Office Superintendent.
J.M. GIRGLANI
Copy to the Principal Secretary F&A and

Agri. Dev. Commissioner, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
Copy to the new point “Postings in violation of Presidential Order”.
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER.
9
Lr.No.6/48/OMC.A/2001, Dated: 05-03-2002
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri K. Rajeshwar Sharma,
Plot No.181,
H.No.3-5/10, Rajireddy Nagar Colony,
Champapet,
Hyderabad 500 060.
Sir,
Sub: One Man Commission – Furnishing of information with regard to representation
of Sri L. Rajeshwara Sharma, S/o Late Sri K. Janakirama Sarma i/c SDPEO,
Tirupati – Reg.
Ref: Your Representation Dt. Nil to the OMC, A.P Secretariat, Hyderabad.
* * *
I invite your attention to your representation cited to inform that your

representation was examined in consultation with Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise
and it was found that that matter is not a grievance under Presidential Order. Hence the
case is closed.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copy to: Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise,

A.P, Hyderabad with reference to his letter No.5947/2000/CPE/13, dt.03.09.2001.
10
Lr.No.06/89/OMC/SPF/A/2001, Dated: 13-03-2002
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri V. Vijaya Kumar S.A,
Government High School,
Kollapur (P.O)
Mahaboob Nagar District - 509 102.
Sir,
Sub: Representation from Sri V. Vijaya Kumar candidate for the post of Mandal
Parishad Development Officer - Reg.
Ref: 1. Representation from V. Vijaya Kumar S.A, Government High School,

Kollapur, dt.13.07.2001.
2. From the Secretary to Government P R & R D Department
Lr.No.282/10/E.VII.2/2001-3, dt.29.10.2001.
* * *
With reference to the representation 1st stated Sri V. Vijaya Kumar Senior Assistant
Government High School, Kollapur is informed that his request there in is examined in
consultation with the PR & RD Department and it is found that as for merit of the case
since the selection is as per High Court Order treating the post as multi zonal post there is
no merit in the grievance. Therefore the request is rejected.
However, Government is requested to take up the general with the Government of

India and issue necessary orders with G.O.I consent making the post a zonal post as a
specified gazetted category under Schedule 3 to Presidential Order as was the case with
the post B.D.0 and M.D.O from M.D.O to M.P.D.O is only a change of designation. The
post is exactly the issue. Hence its original character under Presidential Order should be
restored.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
11
Lr.No.11/OMC/Medak/1/2001, Dated: 14-03-2002
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
The President,
The Telangana Non-Gazetted Officers‟ Union,
Medak District Branch,
TNGOs Bhavan, Sangareddy,
Medak District.
Sir,
Sub: TNGOs Union – Medak District – Complaint of Violation of G.O.Ms.No.610 in
Medak District – Reg.
Ref: 1. Your Representation dated 04.08.2001.

2. From OMC Lr.No. 11/OMC/Medak/2001,dt.26.12.2001.
3. From the Engineer-in-Chief (Admin. Wing), Irrigation & CAD Department,
Errummanzil, A.P Hyderabad Lr.No.Rc.ENC/D3/20427/2001, dt.25.01.2002
* * *
In continuation of the Commissions‟ letter second cited, I would like to inform you
that the Engineer-in-Chief (AW), I & CAD has furnished his report on the appointments
made by the authorities in Medak district with reference to illegal appointments made in
Serial No. 1 to 4 of your representation cited in violation of guidelines contained in the
G.O.Ms.No. 610, G.A (SPF-A) Department dt.30.12.1985 are as follows.
a) Sri B. Kumaranandam was initially appointed as Tracer in the scale of Rs.260-

450 by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation circle No.3, Nizamabad in its
order dated 22.06.1977. The individual joined in the service on 30.06.1977 in
the O/o Executive Engineer, Singuru Project Division, Sangareddy. On
verification of his service register he is native of Venkatagiri, Nellore District.
b) Smt. G. Madhavi has been appointed as Attender under compassionate grounds

due to demise of her husband Sri G. Babu Rao, Draughtsman while in service.
On the orders of Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle No.3 Nizamabad, she

has joined in service on 17.06.1996 under local category based on the
certificate issued by the M.R.O, medak dt.08.03.1996.
c) Sri J. Murali Krishna, Draughtsman Gr-I, was originally appointed as Tracer in
the scale of Rs.260-450 by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation circle No.3,
Nizamabad on 18.02.1977. He was joined in the duty on 22.02.1977 in N.S.R
Division No.1, Nizamabad. Further he was promoted as Draughtsman Gr-III by
the Superintending Engineer, Nizamabad and he was reported to duty on
29.05.1985 F.N in the O/o SPC-I Division, Sangareddy, Subsequently he was
promoted as Draughtsman Gr-II by the orders of Superintending Engineer,
Nizamabad and reported on 23.08.1997 in MIP Survey Division No.3
Sangareddy. On 19.04.2000 he was promoted as Draughtsman Gr-I by the
orders of Superintending Engineer, Nizamabad. He was reported in the Dam
Division No.2 Singuru w.e.f 6.5.2000 F.N. On verification of his service register,
the individual is native of Godavaru Village of Tenali Taluk, Guntur District.
d) And Sri K.V.V.S.N Raju, A.E was appointed initially as Supervisor (AE) by the
Chief Engineer, General on 05.08.1978. The individual was joined on
22.08.1978 F.N in the O/o Superintending Engineer, CAD, Pochampad.
On verification of the service register of the individual has given permanent
address at Hyderabad and declared his hometown as Hyderabad. Further on
the allegation levelled by the TNGOs Association about his nativity that no
information is available in the Department.
2. On the above, the Commission has examined the above issue in respect of their
appointments, and it is found that the appointments of Sri B. Kumaranandam,
Draughtsman Gr-III, Sri J. Murali Krishna, Draughtsman Gr-I, Sri K.V.V.S.N. Raju A.E were
made prior to the year 1985 and even prior to 1983 in projects, then excluded from the
Presidential Order. The appointment of Smt. G. Madhavi, Attender is under compassionate
grounds as local candidate under the proof of residential certificate, issued by the M.R.O,
which is quite in order. Even otherwise Government have permitted under compassionate
appointments for non-locals in terms of the orders issued in Government Memo
No.1345/Ser-A/87-4, G.A (Services-A) Dept. dt. 30.11.1987.
3. Hence there is no case for interference by the Commission in respect of the

appointments made in Sl. Nos. 1 to 4 in you representation first cited.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
12
Lr.No.11/OMC/KARIMNAGAR/2/2001, Dated: 16-03-2002

From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri L. Veerappa,
Divisional Public Relations Officer,
O/o the Divisional Public Relations Office,
Information & Public Relations Department,
Hyderabad Collectorate Office Premises,
Abids, Hyderabad.
Sir,
Sub: OMC – Implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610, General Administration (SPF-A)
Department dt,30-12-1985 – Representation submitted for rectification of
anomaly – Reg.

* * *
I invite your attention to the representation cited, wherein you had requested to
rectify the anomaly and re-consideration of the allotment of Zone-V in respect of Mr.
M.A.K.Hashmi and Mr. P. Bikshapathy.
After examining your representation, the Commission has come to a conclusion that
it is obvious that the appeals of the two individuals mentioned in the petition against their
initial allotment were rejected, and so their allotment become final and they did not
agitate in Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. You were not an Objector to their
initial allotment.
Hence you have no ‘locus standi’ to question their initial allotment, when the
concerned individuals themselves have acquired in it and accepted it over the last 26 years
and you were not an Objector.
In view of the above facts there are no merits in your representation in the result
the representation is hereby rejected.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
13
Lr.No.06/6/OMC(A)/2001-2, Dated: 21-03-2002
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri M. Narasimha Murthy,
Sr. Assistant (Retd.)
H.No.4/238, 3rd Road,
Anantapur.
Sir,
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Representation from Sri M. Narasimha Murthy, Sr. Assistant
(Retd.) – Reg.
Ref: 1. Representation from Sri M. Narasimha Murthy, Sr. Assistant (Retd.) dated
14.07.2001.
2. From the CCLA, Hyderabad, Lr.No.CCLA/N1/2701/2001, dt.24.01.2001.
* * *
I invite your attention to your representation 1st cited, and to inform you that your
representation was examined in consultation with Chief Commissioner of Land
Administration, Hyderabad and it was found that the matter is not a grievance under
Presidential Order. Hence the case is closed.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copt to: The Spl. C.S & C.C.L.A, Nampally, Hyderabad

14
Proceeding No.06/77/OMC(SPF)/2001, Dt: 10-4-2002
Sub:- OMC(SPF) – Implementation of G.O. Ms. No. 610, GA(SPF-A) Dept.,

dt: 30-12-1985 and provisions of Presidential Order, 1975 – Representation
of Sri. P. Gangu Naidu, Superintendent request for restoration of his
seniority to 22-9-1973 – Petition is allowed and recommended for his
seniority from 22-9-1973.
Ref:- 1) Representation dt: 12-11-2001 from Sri. P. Gangu Naidu, Superintendent

14(A) Bn. NCC Srikakulam – 532 001.
2) OMC(SPF-A Letter. No. 06/77/OMC(SPF-A)/2001-1, dt: 30-11-01
3) From the Dy. D.G. NCC, A.P. file No.NCC(AP)/918/1/637/E-2, NCC
Directorate, A.P., General Chaudhuri Road, Secunderabad.
ORDER:
In his petition 1st read above, Sri. P. Gangu Naidu, Superintendent 14 (A) Bn. NCC,
Srikakulam has stated he was appointed as Typist in 10 (A) Bn. NCC, Visakhapatnam on
22-9-1973 and worked from 22-9-1973. Subsequently he was transferred to 9 (A) Bn.
NCC, Vizianagaram on 9-5-1974. Later on he was transfred to 11(A) Bn. NCC,
Mahabubnagar vide NCC Directorate (A.P. Secretariat) Secunderabad in Proceedings No.
NCC (A.P.)/910/10/SPE/E-1/T and ST (11) dated 19-4-1977 and was allotted to Zone No.
VI (Mahabubnagar Dist.). Due to raising of new Battalion in Srikakulam (Zone – I), he
was transferred to 14(A) Bn. NCC, Srikakulam as per NCC Directorate (A.P), Secunderabad
Order No. NCC(A.P.)/911/4/E-1-7 dated 25-9-1979 from 8 (A) Bn. NCC, Mahabubnagar
(Zone – VI) as per the Govt. instructions vide Para 2 if G.O.Ms. No. 851, Education Dept.,
dated 19-9-1979. His seniority was overlooked from 22-9-1973 though Government had
permitted his transfer to Srikakulam dist. (Zone – I) vide para.4 of NCC Directorate (A.P.),
Secunderabad letter No. NCC (A.P.)/918/1/637/E-4(153) dated 29-8-2001. His
Department had not mentioned that he would take last rank in the list of approved
probationers in Zone – I. He has consequently lost his Seniority form 22-9-1973 to 16-10-
1979 on joining in Zone – I (Visakahapatnam, Vizianagaram and Srikakulam even though
he had opted for Zone in April, 1977).
2. He has requested to consider his case and recommend restoration of his original
seniority from the date of his first appointment in Zone –I with effect from 22-9-1973 to
till date as per rule 33 (A) of A.P. Subordinate Service Rules.
3. The Dy. Director General, NCC in his letter 3 rd read above has stated that Sri. P.
Gangu Naidu was appointed as Typist on 22-9-1973 in 10(A) Bn. NCC, Visakhapatnam and
worked in that Unit upto 8-5-1974. Thereafter, he was transferred to the then 9(A) Bn.
NCC, Vizianagaram, at his request and worked there till 4-5-1977. At the time of
implementation of Presidential Order and Organisation of local cadres, one Steno – Typist
and Two Typists (including the applicant) had opted for Visakhapatnam District. The then
9(A) Bn. NCC, Vizianagaram was disbanded during May 1977. The applicant who was
working in that Unit as Typist opted for Visakahapatnam District. Consequent to the re-
organisation in his Department by the Govt. of India in 1977, only one Typist post was
available in Visakhapatnam District, due to dis-bandment of NCC units. In order to avoid
retrenchment, Sri. P. Gangu Naidu, who was the Junior most in the category of Typist and
was found surplus in Visakhapatnam District was allotted to Mahabubnagar District vide
G.O.Ms.No.470, EDN.(X) Dept., dt: 18-4-1977 vidde this Dept. Order No.
NCC(A.P)/910/10/SPF/E-1/T&S(11), dated 19-4-2001 where clear vacancy of Typist post
was available. His representation for re-allotment to Visakhapatnam District was also
rejected by the Govt. vide Govt. Memo. No. 438/X/77-56, Edn. Dept., Dt: 11-5-1979.
During the year 1979, 14(A) Bn. NCC, Srikakulam was raised / opened since the individual
belongs to Zone – I, the Head of the Department has considered his case to transfer him
to 14(A) Bn. NCC, Srikakulam in accordance with the orders of the Govt. issued in
G.O.Ms.No.851, Edn. Dept., dt:19-9-1979. As such his seniority being maintained in Zone
– I w.e.f. his date of promotion as Senior Assistant i.e., 13-5-1982 and he was promoted
as Superintendent accordingly. The Seniority of the individual was maintained in
Mahabubnagar District in the category of Typist, till he was transferred to his native
district. After his transfer to Srikakulam District as Typist and after conversion as Junior
Assistant, he was further promoted as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 13-5-1982. Accordingly his
seniority in the Zone – I was maintained w.e.f. 13-5-1982 i.e. the date of his promotion as
Senior Assistant. Then he was promoted as superintendent on his turn, and no juniors to
him were promoted as Superintendents., by – passing his seniority in Zone – I. His
request to change his Zonal allotment from Zone – VI to Zone – I at this stage is not
correct, as he has already accepted the transfer to Srikakulam Dist. (Zone – I) and no
representation whatsoever was preferred by him against the said transfer. He is presently
serving in Zone – I w.e.f. 17-10-1979.
4. The Commission has carefully considered the case. The initial allotment was to
Mahaboobnagar though the petitioner was serving in Vijayanagaram. This was under
Presidential Order para 4(4), for want of vacancies in his Local District. Later on when
vacancies become available Govt. was kind and considerate in adjusting him in the
vacancies in the local cadre to which he belonged. To that extent, it cannot be considered
as a “ request transfer” that results in a person taking the last rank in the seniority in the
cadre to which he is transferred. This in infact a suo moto transfer by Govt. to put a local
condidate back in his local cadre from which he was plucked out in the initial allotment.
So he cannot lose his original seniority which is from 22-9-1973. This seniority has to be
restored to him as posting consequent on formation of local cadres and allotments therein
under the Presidential Order either initially or little late, in appeal or otherwise suo moto
by the Govt. cannot take away a person‟s original seniority which is traceable to his
original post in his own District Cadre where he was local candidate.
5. The petition is allowed and may be recommended to Government for restoration of

his seniority. i.e. from 22-9-1973.
J.M.GIRGLANI
To:
1. Sri. P. Gangu Naidu, Superintendent, 14(A) Bn. NCC, Srikakulam – 532 001.
2. The Director General, NCC, Directorate, A.P., General Chaudhuri Road, Secunderabad.
3. The Secy.to Govt., Education Dept.,
4. The Secy.to Govt., GA(SPF) Dept.,
5. The Secy.to Govt., GA(Services) Dept.,
6. Copy to OMC B-Section to addin General Point “effect of restoration to once original
local cadre after initials allotment under para 4(4) to another cadre”
7. Spare.
//FORWARD BY ORDER\\
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
15
Lr.No.11/OMC/Nizamabad/6/2001, dt:10-4-2002
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Director of Collegiate Education,
Nampally,
Opp. Latha Talkies,
Hyerabad.
Sir,
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Dr. P. Jayaram, Lecturer in Microbiology, Government College,
Kamareddy, Nizamabad District (Zone-VI) – Transfer to D.K. Government
College for Women, Nellore (Zone-III) – Reg.
Ref: 1. Representation from Dr. P. Jayaram, Lecturer in Microbiology, Government

College, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District, dt 20.07.2001
2. Letter from the Director of Collegiate Education, Hyderabad
Rc.No.1435/Services-IV/1/2001, dt 18.02.2002.
* * *
I enclose herewith a copy of references first and second cited.

In the representation 1st cited, Dr. P. Jayaram, Lecturer in Microbiology,
Government Degree College, Kamareddy has requested the One Man Commission for his
transfer from Zone-VI to Zone-III i.e from Government Degree College, Kamareddy to D.K
Government Degree College for Women, Nellore.
On receipt of the report from the Director of Collegiate Education in the reference
second cited the OMC has examined the case in detail are as follow:-
This is a case of an institution coming under the Government for the first time long
after the passing of the Presidential Order. It is something like opening a new government
office or department. When such a thing happens, for that new organization which comes
under the Presidential Order for the first time, the exercise to be undertaken is the same
as was done from 18-10-1975 onwards for the first time for the entire government and
local bodies viz., to bring this new organization under the system of local cadres both
district and zonal existing within the department. The existing staff of the institution
would then be taken up for initial allotment in the same way as was done when
Presidential Order was first brought into force applying the provisions of Para 4 (4) of the
Presidential Order which are applied for initial allotments. If this exercise is done, some of
the staff may be sent to their local districts and local zones respectively and in their place
some staff would be brought from other zones and districts but would be local for this
organization. This exercise was not done. The Director, Collegiate Education may
undertake this exercise and bring this organization under the Presidential Order by
necessary reallotments and consequent transfers.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copt to: The individual (Dr. P. Jayaram, Lecturer, Government

College, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District)
Copy to: A2/OMC(SPF-B) with a request to include the above item

under the new general issue number “ORGANISATION/CADRES COMING
UNDER PRESIDENTIAL ORDER FOR THE FIRST TIME AFTER 18.10.1975:
NATURE OF ACTION TOBE TAKEN”.
16
Lr.No.11/OMC/Medak-3/2001, dt:11-4-2002
From
Room No: 320,
„K‟ Block, 2nd Floor,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
The Secretary to Government (R&E)
Finance Department
„L‟ Block, A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad (w.es)
Sir,
Sub: OMC – SPF – Absorption of surplus staff without following Presidential Order
– Basis for doing so – Information called for – Reg.
Ref: 1. From the OMC Lr.No.11/OMC/Medak-3/2001, dt.30.08.2001.

2. From the Commissioner of Labour, A.P Hyderabad, Lr.No. A5/18280/2001,
dt.31.12.2001 and 09.03.2002.
3. From the OMC Lr.No.11/OMC/Medak-3/2001, dt.07.02.2002.
* * *
It has been brought to the notice of the Commission in the reference 1st cited above
that one Sri D. Jayamani Raju, a surplus employee, Work Inspector, Gr.IV in NSC Circle
Nuziveedu was appointed as Jr. Asst. in Medak District in Labour Department in terms of
the orders issued in Memo No.48966/A/621/SMPC/97 of Finance and Planning (FW.PC.II)
Department, dt.08.10.1977. Subsequently, the individual was absorbed as Jr. Asst. in
Medak district basing on the above orders.
On examination, the OMC requested the Commissioner of Labour to verify and

furnish a detailed report on this appointment.
The Commissioner Labour has reported that after completion of 5 years of service
as NMR the individual was appointed as Work Inspector Gr.IV on 30.04.1986 in the O/o
Dy. Executive Engineer, NSC sub division, Nuzeveedu. Subsequently, as per Government
Memo No.48966-A/621/SMPC/97, F&P (FWPC-II) Department, dated 08.10.1977, he was
allotted as Jr. Asst. in the Labour Department as surplus staff by the C.E., NS Project, Hill
Colony, Nalgonda district vide Proc. Dated 23.10.1977. Consequent on allotment and
basing on the clarification issued in Memo No.1102/Lab.IV/A1/97-1, dt 06.02.1998 and
Memo No.427/Lab-IV/A1/98-1, dt 01.05.1998, the Dy. Commissioner Labour Ranga
Reddy, has posted the individual in the O/o Asst. Labour Office, Narsapur, Medak as Jr.
Asst. in the existing vacancy vide Proc. No.A1/182/98 on 16.07.1998. Medak district
comes under Zone-VI.
In addition to the above, he has also reported that on verification of the educational
records it is seen that the individual is a native of Krishna District and local candidate of
Krishna District and consequent on allotment as surplus staff, the individual was absorbed
as Jr. Asst. in Medak District under the control of D.C., Labour Ranga Reddy Zone. He is a
non-local in Medak Dist.
In the context of this case and other similar cases and representations to the
Commission on his visits to the Districts it is seen that absorption of surplus staff is being
done without applying Presidential Order with regard to local candidates. Kindly inform
whether there is any order of the State Government or Government of India to exclude
such absorption without following the rule of reservation for local candidates. If so a copy
may kindly be sent urgently, so as to enable to Commission for incorporation in its report
on this issue. If there are no such orders do the Govt. propose to get such orders issued
in concurrence with the Government of India (through G.A(SPF) Department) to include
such absorption under schedule to GSR.529(E) under sub para (8) of para 3 of Presidential
Order.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copt to: ASO-II (OMC-B), with a request to include the reply under
point No IX in general issues.

From
J.M.Girglani, IAS (Retd.)
Room No: 320,
‟K‟ Block, 2ndFloor,
A.P., Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
The Principal Secretary to Govt.
Irrigation & CAD Dept.
Secretariat,
Hyderabad.(w.es.)
Letter No. 11/OMC/Medak/3/01, dated: 10-05-2002.

Sir,
Sub:- OMC – SPF – Minutes of the Meeting – Medak Dist. – communicated - reply –
Clarification – Reg.
Ref:- 1) Minutes of the meeting of Medak Dist.

2) From the Commissioner, Labour. Letter No. A5/18280/2001, dated 31-
12-2001and 09-03-2002.
3) From the OMC letter No. 11/OMC/ Medak – 3/2001, dated 11-04-
2002 addressed to the Secretary to Govt. (R & E) Dept.
4) From the Secretary to Govt. (IF) Finance (SMPC) Dept. Letter No. 12179
– D/1020/SMPC/2002, dated 23-04-2002.
* * *
1. I invite your kind attention to the references cited, wherein the OMC has been
offered the remarks on the minuets of meeting of Medak District held at Nizamabad on 02-
05-2001 from the Collector, Medak and other concerned Departments.
2. Further to inform you that on communication, the Commissioner of Labour has

furnished his reply on the following point.
“Sri. K. Gangaram, former President of Medak TNGOs Union said

that a list of 40,000 non-local in Zones V and VI was given to the
then Hon‟ Chief Minister, late Sri. N. T. Rama Rao.”
3. On the above, the Commissioner of Labour has reported that Medak Dist. is
situated in VI Zone, one Sri D. Jayamani Raju a surplus employee Work Inspector Gr-IV
in NSC circle, Nuzividu was appointed as Jr. Assistant in Labour Department, Medak
District in view of the orders issued in Memo No.48966/A/621/SMPC/97, Finance
Department. dt:08-10-97, and subsequently the individual was absorbed as Jr. Asst. in
Labour Deptt, Medak District. As per the information furnished by Commissioner Labour,
Sri. D. Jayamani Raju is a native of Krishna District.
4. In this aspect the Commission has requested the Finance (R & E) Dept. on the
applicability of Presidential Order in respect of “Surplus staff” (Copy enclosed).
5. With the above, the Fin (SMPC) Dept. has informed that clear instructions were
issued by Irrigation Dept. in G.O.Ms.No.234, Irrigation, dt:01-08-1995 that Workcharged
employees are exempted from Six point formula and there is no objection in allotting them
to the needy Departments in the state as they are exempted from SPF. (Copy enclosed).
6. On the above, I request you to clarify the following points urgently:-

a) Whether Irrigation Deptt. obtained the concurrence of GA (SPF) Dept. for issue of
orders in G.O.Ms.No 234, Irrigation, dt:01-08-95.
b) Whether, the GA (SPF) Dept. has obtained the concurrence of Govt. of India‟s on
the above orders.
c) Whether absorption of a Workcharged employee in a surplus posts does not
convert this position from Workcharged to a regular Govt. employee and, in such
a case, does he not come under Presidential Order?
d) Whether the individual is a “local” candidate of Krishna District in terms of the
definition of “local-candidate” in Presidential Order, or only a native. If native, of
what district is he a “local candidate” in terms of the definition under the
Presidential Order.
e) Was there no vacancy in the District where he is a local for his absorption there.
Is there no such vacancy at least now?
f) Is there no local candidate of Medak District to be absorbed in the Medak District
vacancy?
g) A list of surplus candidates absorbed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.234, dt: 01-08-1995,
so far may be given urgently as under.
Sl. Name of the Of what In which Date of Can he now

Surplus District is he District was absorption be sent to
No
Employee with “local he the district
designation of candidate” in absorbed? where he is
the post in terms of In what local. (i.e. is
which Presidential post? there a
absorbed and Order? vacancy
pay scale there?
1 2 3 4 5 6
7. Government may kindly consider issuing urgent Orders to stop absorption in

violation of Presidential Order and to absorb only in the cadres of which the candidate is a
local candidate in terms of the Presidential Order.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copy to: The Secretary (R & E) Finance Dept. Secretariat

with a request to kindly furnish the relevant information on the
above, to the extent they are concerned, and also for necessary
action on para 7 above.
Copy to: The GA (SPF-A) Dept. with a similar request and for taking
initiative in issuing orders on para 7 above.
Copy to Points: (7) “Workcharged Employees” for inclusion in the report.
OMC B. Section ASO (2)
17
Letter No. 11/OMC/WRL-15/2001, dated: 12-04-2002.
From
Room No: 320,
A.P., Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri A.Gopal,
Inspector of Fisheries (Retd.)
H.No.2-92/12,
Anand Nagar Colony,
Bheemaram, Hanamkonda,
Warangal.
Sir,
Sub:- OMC – Sri A.Gopal, Inspector of Fisheries (Retd.), Notional Promotion to the
post of Asst. Director, Fisheries under SPF – Reg.
Ref:- 1) Representation from Sri A.Gopal, Inspector of Fisheries (Retd.), dated

31.07.2001.
2) OMC Lr.No.11/OMC/WRL-15/2001, Hyderabad, dt.05.09.2001.
3) From the Commissioner of Fisheries, A.P, Hyderabad
Lr.No.13585/A1/2001, dt.26.03.2002 addressed to the individual under
copy to OMC
* * *
With reference to the representation 1st cited, it is to inform you that the case does
not fall under Presidential Order. Hence Commission is not concerned with this.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
18
PROCEEDINGS OF ONE MAN COMMISSION (SPF)
Proceedings No.11/OMC/WRL-2/2001, dt:16-4-2002
* * *
Present:- Sri J.M.Girglani, IAS (Retd.)
Sub: OMC – Minutes of the Meeting held by OMC with Officials of Warangal District
and representatives of Unions and Individual Petitioners at Warangal on
31.07.2001 in the O/o the Collector, Warangal – Reg.
Ref: 1. Minutes of the Meeting of OMC communicated through

D.O.Lr.No.11/OMC/WRL/2/2001, dt.04.09.2001.
2. From the Commissioner of Labour Lr.No.A5/18280/2001, dt.31.12.2001.
and 09.03.2002.
* * *
The Commissioner Labour has replied to the minutes of the meeting mentioned
above.
Point No.1 “ The Labour officer mentioned that 40% of Asst. Labour Officers were by
direct recruitment and 60% by promotion. But there were non-locals of other zones also,
though all the 60% promotion posts should be from the same zone. The 40% direct
recruitment has also to follow the Presidential Order. Out of a total 48 promotion quota to
the posts of Asst. Labour Commissioner, 15 were from outside the zone”.
On the said point, the Commissioner of Labour has informed that the post of Asst.
Labour officer is a zonal cadre post and that one of the channels of promotion to this post
is a from Senior Assts/Senior Stenos working in the O/o Commissioner of Labour. The
cycle of vacancies rotated is as follows.
01. Senior Assistant/Senior Stenographer

04. Labour Welfare Center Staff
This is in the Rules.
Under the 60% promotion quota, appointment to the posts of Asst. Labour Officer
shall be made in the ratio prescribed in the Rules viz., 9:1. Among Senior Assts/Senior
Stenos in the Directorate and Subordinate office the appointment shall be made in the
ratio of 2:3 as follows:-
1st Vacancy :- Subordinate Offices

nd
2 Vacancy :- Directorate Offices
rd
3 Vacancy :- Subordinate Offices
4th Vacancy :- Directorate Offices
5th Vacancy :- Subordinate Offices
This Commission is of the view that when the rules clearly provide for
Transfer for purposes of promotion from the Directorate, there is nothing irregular about
such transfer, as per the orders issued by the Government under para 10(a) of G.O.P.
No.728, dt. 1.11.75 issued by the G.A.(SPF-A) Department as Instructions issued under
the Presidential Order (at Page-53 of the Guidelines Book).
J.M.GIRGLANI
To
The Prl. Secretary to Government,
L.E.T & F Department,
Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
Copy to:- The Commissioner, Labour Department,

Tanguturi Anjaiah Bhavan, Charminar X Roads, Hyderabad
Copy to:- OMC SPF-B (ASO.2) to incorporate under the general issue
of “PROMOTION BY TRANSFER FROM THE H.O.D OFFICE”
as new point.
// Forwarded by order //
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
19
Lr.No.11/OMC/Medak/1/2001, Dt: 18.04.2002
From:
J.M. Girglani, IAS(Retd.),
Room No: 320, 2nd Floor,
K-Block, A.P., Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
The President
The Telengana Non-Gazetted Officers‟ Union,
Medak Dist.
Sir,
Sub:- TNGOs Union – Medak District – Complaint of violation of

G.O.M.s.No.610 in Medak District - Report of Co-Operative Dept – Reg.
Ref: 1) Your representation dated 4.8.2001.

2) From the OMC Lr.No.11/OMC/Medak/2001, dt:26.12.2001 and
14.3.2002.
3) From the Registrar of Co-Operative Socities, A.P. Hyderabad
Lr.No.39275/2000 E4, dated 23.2.2002.
* * *
In continuation of the commission‟s letter 2nd cited, I would like to inform you that
the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies has furnished report regarding appointments made
by the authorities in Medak District in Serial Numbers 5,6,7,8,9 viz. Ramesh Babu,
Jr.Inspector, Shivvaiah, Jr.Inspector, Srinivas Rao, Jr.Inspector, Siddareddy, Jr.Inspector,
Krishna Murthy, Co-op Sub Registrar of your representation 1st cited in violation of
guidelines contained in G.O.Ms.No.610 GA(SPF-A) Dept. dt:30.12.85
2. On the above, the commission has examined the said issue in detail as follows:-
3. In the year 1993, the APPSC, has allotted 85 candidates to the post of Jr.Inspector
in Zone-VI. Out of 85 candidates, 60 candidates were local and 25 candidates were non-
local allotted to the cooperative department. Only 52 locals and 23 Non – Local candidates
were Joined . The percentage of non-locals comes to 29.41%.
4. Further as per the Para 8(2)(a) of AP Public Employment (Organisation of Local

Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975 posts belongs to non – Gazetted
categories other than L.D.C posts, 70% of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment by
local candidates.
5. The Serial Numbers 5 to 8 as pointed out in your representation, that the above
four candidates are included in the allotment of 25 non-locals to this Zone, as per the
percentage that there is no excess allotment of non-locals.
6. In addition to the above, even in the year 1979 the allotment made by the APPSC is
not exceeding the 30% in Zone VI under non-locals. In the said allotment the Serial
Number 9 viz., Sri K. Krishna Murthy was allotted under non-local quota by Direct
Recruitment. Now the individual is Co-Operative Sub-Registrar. On the allotment of
candidates by the APPSC the Co-Operative Department in tern has issued orders.
7. Hence, there is no case for interference by the OMC in respect of the appointments
made by the Co-Operative Department based on the allottment orders issued by the
APPSC in respect of Serial Numbers 5 to 9 (viz.)Ramesh Babu, Jr.Inspector, Shivvaiah,
Jr.Inspector, Srinivas Rao, Jr.Inspector, Siddareddy, Jr.Inspector, Krishna Murthy, Co-op
Sub Registrar in your representation 1st cited.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copy to: The Collector Medak District, Medak at Sangareddy.

Copy to: The Registrar of Co-Operative Socities, Gruha Kalpa, Opp. to Gandhi
Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad.
20
Lr.No.11/OMC/Medak/1/2001, Dt: 18.04.2002
From:
J.M. Girglani, IAS( Retd.),
Room No: 320, 2nd Floor,
K-Block, A.P., Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To:
The President
The Telengana Non-Gazetted Officers‟ Union,
Medak Dist.
Sir,
Sub:- TNGOs Union – Medak District – Complaint of violation of

G.O.M.s.No.610 in Medak District - Reg.
Ref: 1) Your representation dated 4.8.2001.

2) From the OMC Lr.No.11/OMC/Medak/2001, dt:26.12.2001.
3) From the OMC Lr.No.11/OMC/Medak/1/2001, dt.14/03/2002.
* * *
In continuation of the letter second and third cited, I would like to inform you that
the Commission has examined the issue in respect of appointment of K. Vijayalakshmi, Jr.
Assistant in the year 1997 and V.K.Durga Jr. Assistant in the year 1985 in the O/o the
Superintendent of Police, Sanga Reddy on compassionate ground and it is found that the
above two appointments are squarely made in terms of the Government Memo
No.1345/Services-A/87-4, dt:30.11.1987 issued by the G.A (Services) Department and
there is no violation of the G.O.Ms.No.610.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copy to: PA to OMC (SPF) for stock file.
21
Proceeding No.06/73/OMC.A/2001, dt: 24-4-2002
Sub:- OMC (SPF) Works Accounts Service – Divisional Accounts Officer (Works)
Cadre – Implementation of G.O.Ms.No.610, GA(SPF-A) Deptt., Dt:30-12-
1985 and provisions of Presidential Orders 1975. Proceeding issued.
Ref:- 1) Representation dt: 24-9-2001 received from the President Telengana

Divisional Accounts Officers ( Works) Association.
2) OMC. Letter no. 06/73/OMC/SPF/A/2001-1, dt:26-9-2001.
3) From the Secy. to Govt., Finance Department, D.O.Lr.No,
34288/A/644/WA-II/2001,dt:25-10-2001.
4) Representation dt:15-3-2002, from the president, T.D.A.O. ( Works)
Association.
5) OMC. D.O.Lr.No. 06/73/OMC-A/2001-3, dt: 11-4-2002.
***
1. The president Telelngana D.A.Os (Works) Association in their representation dt: 24-
9-2001 while explain in detail has represented for the implementation of the following :
I. Zonal System is in Existence up to the cadre of Asst. Director, Deputy Registrar,

Deputy Executive Engineer, whose scale of pay ( Rs.6950 -13,900 )is equal to
that of Asst. Pay & Accounts Officer (APAO). Hence, on the same lines, Zonal
System should be extended up to the cadre of APAO in works Accounts Service.
II. All Non – Locals working in D.A.O‟s cadre in 5th and 6th zones and twin cities of
Hyderabad & Secunderabad should be transferred to their respective zones and
local candidates should be fill up resultantly fallen vacancies.
III. As a first step, all the vacancies caused either on account of promotions or
retirements in twin cities or Telangana area should be filled up by local
candidates.
2. A meeting was held on 10-1-2002 with the following representatives of Telangana

Divisional Accounts officers (Works) Assn.
1. Sri. S.A. Raoof., President.

2. Sri. G. Anjaiah, Vice president.
3. Sri. K. Srinivasa Chary, Genl. Secretary.
4. Sri. T. Dayaker, Treasurer.
3. A meeting was called for with the official of Fin. & Plg. (W&P) Dept., on 17-4-2002
in the chambers of OMC. Sri. P. Umamaheswara Rao. Jt. Secy. Works Accounts attended
the meeting on behalf of the Dept.
4. The Divisional Accountants entered the Government of A.P. through G.O.Ms.No.304,

Finance and Planning (Finance Wing – WA-I) Department, dt: 20.11.1979 with effect from
01.01.1980 as Gazetted Officers. Hence, their case is not of a Non-gazetted cadre of the
State Government that was Gazetted later on after 18.10.1975 but they are Gazetted at
the inception of the service as a State service. That being the case, as the Commission
has already held in its Preliminary Report that the demand for making all first level
gazetted posts as zonal posts means the expansion of the scope of the Presidential Order
which was not recommended. On the other hand, had they been Non-gazetted and zonal
at the time of the Presidential Order 18.10.1975 in the State Government and had they
been gazetted in the State Government later, then, as the Commission has already held,
they would have justifiably been brought under the category of specified Gazetted Officers
as zonal posts as in principle, the original scope of the Presidential Order cannot be
abridged. But in the present circumstances there is no case for bringing them under the
specified Gazetted Officers category as zonal posts, as they are „ab initio‟ Gazetted, in the
State Government, and hence ab initio outside the Presidential order as State – Wide
Posts.
5. The argument that the first gazetted posts in the Engineering Departments,
Assistant Executive Engineers and even Deputy Executive Engineers, are gazetted and yet
brought under the specified gazetted categories as zonal posts does not have any
relevance because in each Engineering Division there will be a large number of AEEs and
DEEs whereas the number of Divisional Accountants will be one in each division equal to
the number of EEs of the division. Therefore drawing an analogy between AEEs and DEEs
and the Divisional Accountants is not relevant in this context. In fact, Presidential Order
considered AEEs & DEEs on a totally different footing from other Gazetted Officers except a
few in the specified Gazetted Officer category. AEEs and DEEs were brought under the
specified categories right from the beginning under the Presidential Order even when a
large number of other first gazetted posts were kept outside the Presidential Order.
Therefore, there is no case for Divisional Accountants Gr.II or Gr.I being brought under the
category of specified gazetted post as zonal posts. Like all other first and second gazetted
posts, which were not brought under the specified gazetted category on 18.10.1975, these
could also remain out side the Presidential Order, as State – Wide posts.
6. The Commission does not consider their request for being inclusion in the category
of specified Gazetted Officers to be justified and hence rejects their plea.
J.M.GIRGLANI
To:
The President, Telengana DAO (Works),
Office No. 17-1-387/42, Laxminagar,
Vani Colony, Saidabad, Hydearabad.
Copy to: The Director, Works Accounts,

Principal Secretary (works Accounts) Dept.,
Finance (W.&P) Department of Govt., A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad.
//FORWARD BY ORDER\\
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
22
Proceedings on the representation of Sri.Ch.Venkateshwara Rao,

Asst.Inspector of Sericulture O/o Asst.Director of Sericulture. ITDA,
West Godavari Dist.
Present : Sri J.M.Girglani, IAS, (Retd)

* * *
Proceeding.No.11/OMC/W.G Dist/1/2002. Dated: 09-05-2002
Sri. Ch.Venkateshwara Rao Asst. Inspector of Sericulture in the O/o Asst.Director of

Sericulture ITDA, K.R.Puram, West Godavari Dist. transfer from West Godavari Dist.
(Andhra Region from Zone II) to re-allotment to his native dist. Karimnagar Dist.
(Telangana Zone V). The grounds for his representation is that on direct appointment, he
was posted in West Godavari Dist. Zone II due to non-availability of post of Asst. Inspector
of Sericulture in Karimnagar district Zone V.
Sri.Ch.Venkateshwara Rao was appointed in the year 1992 as Asst. Inspector of

Sericulture in the Sericulture Dept. Prior to his appointment he was selected and
sponsored by the sericulture dept. as a local candidate through employment exchange
Karimnagar. He has also admitted that due to non- availability of posts in the cadre of
Asst. Inspector of Sericulture, in Zone V he was appointed in Zone – II West Godavari
Dist. His educational qualification was completed in the “Telangana area”.
On the representation, the Commissioner of Sericulture, who has consulted in the

matter has reported that the individual was appointed in the year 1992 vide proceedings
Rc.No 6455/91-B2, dated 22-07-1992 under rule 10 (a) (i) of A.P.State and Subordinate
Service rules, in the time scale of Rs/- 1150-40-1510-50-2110 with usual admissable
allowances with effect from the date of joining the post. The recruitment for the said post
is (1) by direct recruitment and (2) by promotion from the category of Farm Foreman
Grade – I.
The individual who holds a Post Graduate Diploma in Sericulture from Karimnagar
Dist. was appointed in Zone – II as Non-local candidate under 30% quota with reference
to the instructions issued by the GA (SPF-A) Dept. in G.O.Ms.No. 729, dated 01-11-1975.
The Commissioner of Sericulture has reported that there are no direct recruitment
vacancies available in the cadre of Asst. Inspector in Karimnagar district under Zone – V at
the time of the initial appointment of individual in the department.
The initial mistake was that in making the selection for training, the department
should have kept in view the number of vacancies in each district, because, the training-
candidates were ultimately be appointed to these vacancies. The merit list should have
been district-wise and postings should also have been on the basis of local candidate for
local cadre. If there were any candidates from the local Employment Exchanges of these
Districts, they were obviously weeded out initially itself by following the merit in B.Sc
examination for all candidates together. It is not even very certain whether candidates
were called for from the different Employment Exchanges where Sericulture units are
located. If they did call for from different districts then the appropriate thing was to select
for training, district-wise. However, what has happened is now „fait accompli‟, a case of
deviation from Presidential Order, intended or inadvertent one can never know.
The petitioner was posted not in the free merit quota where non-locals can also
were selected, trained or posted. However, at this stage the candidate from Karimnagar
district cannot be allotted back to Karimnagar district even if he takes last rank in seniority
for the simple reason that according to the Commissioner of Sericulture there were no
direct recruitment vacancies of Asst. Inspector of Sericulture available in Karimnagar
district. The commission would not consider it right to recommend creation of
supernumerary vacancy for him. He has to remain where he is The only recommendation
the Commission can make is that as and when there is a clear vacancy in his local areas
viz. Zone – V, he may be posted to his local zone after verifying his educational record
with regard to his local status. In the HOD Office if there is a vacancy of Asst. Inspector
of Sericulture then the West Godavari man can be posted in that vacancy after verifying
his actual local status. Since transfers would have to be sanctioned by the Government
the Commission recommends to the Government to approve this transfer as and when it
is proposed in clear vacancy. The Head of Department can enclose a copy of the
Commission‟s above proceedings while making the proposal to the Government if and
when the vacancies are available. Since this case is likely to go into the Commissions
Report in the category of appointments in violation of Presidential Order the HOD may
please check up if the factual position as given by him is correct.
J.M.GIRGLANI
To:
1. The Agrl. Development Commissioner,
Food & Civil Supplies Dept.,
Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Commissioner of Sericulture,

Prashashan Nagar, Jubilee Hills,
Road No. 72, Hyderabad.
Copy to: Sri. Ch. Venkateswara Rao, Asst. Inspector of Sericulture, O/o. Asst.
Director of Sericulture, ITDA. K.R. Puram. ( West Godavari Dist.)
Copy to: The point under “Postings in violation of Presidential Order”
//Forwarded : By Order//
Sd/-
Section Officer.
23
Proceedings No.06/82/OMC/SPF.A/2001, Dt: 10-5-2002
Sub:- MCH – S.D-A.P.R.O‟s. – (Library Section) – Public Library, R.P.Road,

Secunderabad under the Management of MCH, S.D., - Sri V.Ramana Chary,
Librarian – Irregularities – Committed during the appointment to the
Sr.Gr.Librarian Post – Certain grievances – Application presented before the
Hon‟ble One Man Commission for necessary Redressal – Reg.
Ref:- 1. Repn. Dt.28.02.2001 from V.Ramana Chary, Retd. Librarian.

2. Lr.No.6/82/OMC(A)/2001-1, dt: 04.01.2002.
3. Lr.No.1061/OP/OP.1/MCH/2002, dt: 24.4.2002.
***
This is a case of pathetic injustice arising out of a deviation from the spirit of the
State Reorganisation Act which assured the people of all the regions and particularly of
Telangana which now constituted Zones V & VI, safeguards for their service rights and
interests. This is a case of a period before the Presidential Order and pertains to the
period when the Mulki Rules were in force.
Sri V. Ramana Chary who was holding the post of LDC was brought as Typist-
cum-Librarian (equivalent to that of L.D.C., and interchangeable therewith). To do
justice to his job he did a certificate course in Library Science from Osmania University.
Then on 9-1-1964 the General Body of the M.C.H. created the post of a Librarian and
advertised it and also called for candidates from Employment Exchange. The qualification
prescribed was Diploma in Library Science. Before the advertisement Miss P. S. Venkata
Laxmi working as Asst. Librarian in Nursing College applied for the post. In response to
advertisement Sri V. Ramana Chary who was already working but drawing the lower grade
of Typist-cum-Librarian applied. Miss V.Lakshmi was non-mulki; in spite of that the
General Body approved her appointment but she failed to join. Her appointment as non-
Mulki was irregular. Sri. V. Ramana Chary continued in his post and it was ultimately on
26.7.1969 the qualification was relaxed and he was appointed as full fledged Librarian in
the higher scale. The irregular appointment of a non-Mulki resulted in loss of time. The
Commissioner wrote to the Government that since any way the relaxation of qualification
was given and he was continuing as Librarian throughout discharging the same duties, it
was just and fair that he should be appointed in the Librarian scale with effect from the
date of creation of the post i.e. 9.1.1964. The Government did not accept the proposal
though there was a very sound reasoning and justice behind it. Meanwhile those who
were L. D. Cs., working with him and junior to him went on getting their regular
promotions and ended up at much higher posts and consequently with higher pension.
He got bogged down in the Librarian post and fell between two stools. Neither did he get
the Librarian post till 29.6.1970 nor did he get the various promotions that his colleagues
as L. D. Cs., got during that period.
This Commission feels that since the entire exercise of going into G.O.Ms.No.610
and the injustice done at a long distance of time before the GO and before the present
day, had to be set right, this is a case that the Government can consider for purposes of
fixation of pension w.e.f. the date which was recommended by the Commissioner justly
and rightly namely 09.01.1964, the date of creation of the Librarian‟s post in which he was
actually functioning at the time. He is an old man with no support of his children who
have also not come up in life. This is the case which if we consider favourably, will
combine many important principles moral as well legal.
1. It will be in the spirit of the State Re-organisation Act, 1956 which safeguards
the rights of the mulkis against any injustice particularly due to the domicile
considerations.
2. It will be a case of doing natural justice.
3. It will be a case of compassion combined with justice.
The case is therefore recommended for favourable consideration of the

Government along with a copy of the petition with all its enclosures and the
Report of the Commissioner, MCH on the present case, which is not now
contextually relevant.
Sd/-
ONE MAN COMMISSIONER (SPF)
To
The Principal Secretary,
MA&UD Dept., „L‟ Block,
Secretariat,Hyderabad.
Copy to the Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad.
Copy to Sri V. Ramana Chary with reference to his petition

24
Lr.No.11/OMC/WRL-10/2002, dt:20-05-2002
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri Mohan Prasad,
Asst. Commissioner of Labour (Retd.)
5-9-31/1/B, Basheer Bagh,
New MLA Quarters,
Hyderabad – 500 063.
Sir,
Sub: OMC – Estt – State Reorganisation Act 1956 – Final Seniority List of Asst.
Inspector of Labour – Under SR Act – Reg.
Ref: 1. Representation from Sri Mohan Prasad, Asst. Commissioner of Labour, dt

26.07.2001.
2. Lr.No.11/OMC/WRL-10/2001, Hyderabad, dt 04.09.2001.
3. From LET & F Department Memo No. 684/Lab.IV/A1/2001-1, dt
18.09.2001
4. From Labour Commissioner, Lr.No.A1/17469/93, dt 04.05.2002.
* * *
With reference to the representation 1st cited, it is to inform you that the case in
question is outside the perview of this Commission.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
25
Lr.No.6/5/OMC/SPF A/2001, dt:06-06-2002
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri M. Veeranna,
C/O A. Buchi Reddy,
H.No.C.68/Opp to Carmal High School ,
P/o Kalyani Khani,
Dist. Adilabad. 504 231.
Sir,
Sub: OMC – Representation of Sri M. Veeranna for Appointment as A.E in P.R
Department – Reg.
Ref: 1. Your Representation dated 13-07-2001 to OMC G.A (SPF) Department

2. From Secretary, APPSC Lr.No.1043/RS/20/AEE/2001, dated
06/05/2002.
* * *
The representation of Sri M. Veeranna cited was examined in consultation with

APPSC and he is informed in zone V there are 78 vacancies. Out of them 43 vacancies
(including 14 women) are OC (non reserved). The marks obtained by the last selected
local candidate is 247.403. Whereas, the Petitioner secure 246.368 marks. Therefore the
Petitioner could not get selection due to his low merit. Thus, no injustice was done to the
Petitioner.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
for ONE MAN COMMISSION
Copy to : Secretary, APPSC, Gruha Kalpa
Nampally, Hyderabad
Copy to : PS to OMC for record.

26
Letter No. 11/OMC/WRL-5/2001, dated: 01-07-2002.
From
Room No: 320,
A.P., Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri T.S Praveen Kumar,
H.No.2-9-456,
Sneha nagar,
NGOs Colony Road,
Hanamkonda 506 001.
Sir,
Sub:- OMC – Discrepancy in selection of Lecturer for Government Degree

College under zone V – Reg.
Ref:- 1. Representation from Sri T.S Praveen Kumar, Jr. Lecturer, Government Jr.
College, Mulug dt. 30.07.2001.
2. OMC Lr.No.11/OMC/WRL-5/2001, Hyderabad, dt.05.02.2001.
3. From the APPSC, Lr.No.12/C1/2001, dt. 02.09.2001
* * *
With reference to the representation 1 st cited, you are informed that the case in
question does not fall under Presidential Order. Hence Commission is not concerned with
it.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
27
Lr No. 11/OMC/NLG/1/2002, dated: 19-08-2002.
From
Room No: 320,
A.P., Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Smt. S.Janaki Devi,
W/O I.V.S.R Sarma,
Farm Foreman,
O/o Asst. Director of Sericulture,
Nalgonda
Nalgonda District.
Madam,
Sub:- OMC – SPF – Representation of Smt. S. Janaki Devi, Farm Foreman, O/o Asst.
Director of Sericulture, Nalgonda – Transfer from Nalgonda Zone VI to
Hyderabad Dist. – Reg.
Ref:- Your Representation dated 12.07.2002 addressed to the OMC (SPF) and copied
to the Commissioner of Sericulture A.P Hyderabad.
* * *
I am to invite your attention to the representation cited, and to inform you that the
Commission has been examined your representation in detail and that the Commission has
to conclude that your case does not come under One Man Commission, as you were
appointed under merit quota and not local quota. Since your request is only for transfer.
Hence your request for transfer does not comes under the purview of Commission.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copy to:
The Commissioner,
Sericulture Department,
Road No.72, Prashasan Nagar,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad for information.
28
Proceeding No: 6/67/OMC-SPF/2001, Dt:04-09-2002
Sub:- OMC P.V. Vijay Kumar, Dy. Tahasildars/ Supt. Civil Supplies Deptt., posted to
Chittor Dist. Transfer to Zone VII/Zone VI – Reg.
Ref:- 1) Representation Dt: 17-7-2001 from Sri. P. V. Vijay Kumar, Dy. Tahasildar
/ supt. Civil Supply Dept.,
2) OMC D.O.Letter No: 6/OMC / SPF/2001, dt: 13-8-2001.
* * *
Sri. P.V. Vijay Kumar, Dy. Tahasildar / Supt. Civil Supply Deptt., in his petition 1 st
cited and stated that he was born in Mahaboobnagar Dist. and brought up in Hyderabad
which come under Zone VI and VII. He joined in service as Jr.Asst. in the O/o. The Chief
Rationing Officer, Hyderabad in April, 1981. His wife is working in a Corporate Office at
Hyderabad Since 1991. During December 1998, he was promoted as Dy.
Tahsildar/Supdt., Civil Supplies which is a Zonal post. He has filed several applications
before and after the promotion requesting for posting in Hyderabad or Zone VI only to
which he is eligible citing the U.O. Note No: 555, dated: 4-10-91, issued by GAD (SPF-A)
Dept., covered under SPF. None of his representations are answered and requested to
consider his request as per the Presidential Order.
The request of the petitioner is examined by the Commission and it is observed

that the Transfer from a Special office or Establishment under Para 14 (c) to a Zonal cadre
can be done only if the state Govt., have made a provision to this effect vide Para 10 (a)
of the clarification G.O.P 728. Dt: 18-11-1975. No such provision has been made in the
Spl. Rules of Civil Supplies Department pertaining to the posts of Dy. Tahsildars of Civil
Supplies or Superintendents.
Hence the transfer from Chief Rationing Office Hyderabad (which fells under Para
14 ( c) of the Presidential Order to any Zone is in violation of Presidential Order.
Therefore the Commission finds that the petitioner has to be brought backs to his
original organisation Chief Rationing Office, Hyderabad.
J. M. Girlglani,
One Man Commission (SPF).
To:-
The E.O. Secy. to Govt.,
Commissioner of Civil Supply,
Food Civil Supply Deptt., Hyderabad.
Copy to :-
Sri. P.V. Vijay Kumar,
Dy. Tahasildar (CS),
O/o. The DSO, Chittoor.
OMC B Section for inclusion in file under point of :transfers”.
//Forwarded by order //
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
29
Proceeding No: 6/116/OMC/SPF/2001, dt: 04- 09-2002
Sub:- P.S. Civil Supplies Deptt., Spl. Dy. Tahasildars/ Dy Tahasildars/ Officer of
Civil Supply Deptt., Request for implementation of Six Point Formula for
transfer – Reg.
Ref:- 1) Representation dt: 23-7-2001 received from Sri. Ravi Theja Naik,
Spl. Dy. Tahasildar, O/o. DSO, Ananthapur.
2) Representation 21-7-2001 received from Sri. Venkateshwara Rao,
Dy. Tahasildar, Civil Suply, Ananthapur.
3) Representation Dt: 23-7-2001 received from Sri. K. Ravindrachari,
Dy. Tahasildar (CS), Srikakulam District.
4) Representation Dt: 19-6-2001 received from A. Ramesh, Dy.Tahasildar,
Supt. Civil Supply Deptt., Ananthapur Dist.,
5) Representation Dt: 17-7-2001 received from Sri P. Rajendra,
Dy. Tahasildar, O/o. DSO, Ananthapur.
6) OMC(SPF) D.O.Letter No: 6/116/OMC/SPF/2001, Dt: 13-8-2001,
addressed to E.O., Prl. Secy. to Govt., Commissioner Food Civil Supplies
and Consumer Affair Deptt., A.P., Hyderabad.
* * *
Sri. K. Ravi Theja Naik Spl. Dy. Tahasildar in his representation 1st cited has stated
that he was born in Mahaboobnagar District and brought up in Hyderabad, falling under
Zone VII & VI. He joined in Service as Junior Assistant in the Office of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Nagar Kurnool, Mahaboobnagar District in March 1977, after wards he
was transferred and posted to Hyderabad in the year 1980 and absorbed in the Civil
Supplies Department in the year 1986. During December 1998 on promotion he was
posted to Anantapur District as Dy. Tahsildar (CS) since then he discharging his duties
with best satisfaction of his superiors and requested for posting in Zone – VII based on Six
Point Formula enunciated by Government to undo – injustice to Telanganities.
2. Sri. M. Venkateshwar Rao, Dy. Tahasildar (C.S), O/o. DSO, Ananthapur in his
representation 2nd cited has stated that he was born in Mahaboobnagar District and
brought up in Hyderabad, falling under Zone VII & VI. He joined in Service as Junior
Assistant in the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagar Kurnool, Mahaboobnagar
District in March 1977, afterwards he was transferred and posted to Hyderabad in the year
1980 and absorbed in the Civil Supplies Department in the year 1986. During December
1998 on promotion he was posted to Anantapur District as Dy. Tahsildar (CS) since then
he has been discharging his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and requested for
posting in Hyderabad.
3. Sri. K. Ravindra Chary, Dy. Tahasildar (CS), Srikakulam.Dist., in his petition 3rd
cited has stated that he is the native of Nalgonda District born in Bhongir. He had joined
in service in the year 1975 in Revenue Department, Nalgonda District. Consequent on
transfer to Civil Supplies Department during the year 1980 he was absorbed in civil
supplies Department. He has discharged his duties in the Civil Supplies Department (Chief
Rationing Officer‟s Unit) Hyderabad upto 1998 to the satisfaction of his superior
authorities. During November 1998 the Hon‟ble Commissioner Civil Supplies has given
him promotion as Deputy Tahsildar and posted him to Srikakulam District consequently in
compliance to the order of the same he has joined in his duties at Srikakulam District and
now request to consider him for transfer to the City as per Presidential Order.
4. Sri. A. Ramesh, Dy. Tahasildar(CS), O/o. DSO, Ananthapur, in his Petition 4th cited
has stated that he is native of Hyderabad District and brought up at Hyderabad. He has
joined in service as jr. Asst. in the Office of the Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad in June,
1987. During October, 1998 he was promoted as Dy. Tahasildar (CS) / Supt., which is a
Zonal post, but he was posted to Anantapur Dist., against Presidential order. He has
submitted several representations requesting for posting to Hyderabad or Zone VI only to
which he is eligible. However, neither his representations are considered nor answered till
date under Six Point Formula i.e., Zonal postings, and recommend for transfer by
implementation of Zonal System.
5. Sri. P. Rajendra, Dy. Tahasildar, O/o. DSO, Ananthapur, in his petition 5th cited has
started that he was born and brought up in Hyderabad city. After Completion of his
education, he was appointed in the office of the Chief Rationing Officer, Hyd., which is part
of civil Supplies Department. In December 1998, he was promoted as Deputy Tahasildar
and posted to Anantapur District. No Zonal system is maintained in the office of The
Commissioner, Civil Supplies, and locals are transferred and posted to far off places also
such as Anantapur, Chittoor Districts. His request to post in Zone VI, in which has the
legitimate right for posting lies as per G.O.M.S.No:610, was not considered and requested
to consider his case and do justice for posting in Zone VI under Six Point Formula.
The request of the petitioners is examined by the Commission and it is observed that the
Transfer from a Special Office or Establishment under para 14 ( c) to a Zonal cadre can be
done only if the State Government have made a provision to this effect vide para 10 (a) of
the clarification G.O.P.728, dated 18-11-1975. No such provision has been made in the
Spl. Rules of Civil Supplies Department pertaining to the posts of Dy. Tahsildars of Civil
Supplies or Superintendents.
Hence the transfer from Chief Rationing Office Hyderabad (which fells under para
14 (c) of the Presidential Order to any Zone is in violation of Presidential Order.
Therefore the Commission finds that the petitioners has to be brought back to their
original organisation Chief Rationing Office, Hyderabad.
J.M.GIRGLANI
To:-
The Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies,
E.O. Secy. to Govt., Secretariat, A.P.,
Hyderabad.
Copy to :-
1) Sri. Ravi Teja Naik. Spl. Dy. Tahsildar (C.S), O/o DSO, Ananthapur
2) Sri. Venkateshwara Rao. -do-
3) Sri. K. Ravindra Chari, Dy. Tahsildar, Srikakulam District.
4) Sri. A. Ramesh, Dy. Tahsildar (C.S), O/o DSO, Ananthapur.
5) Sri. P. Rajendra. -do-
Copy to : - OMC – B Section case to be put under points of “transfers”.
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER

Proceeding No: 6/116/OMC/SPF/2001, Dt:03-12-2002
Sub:- P.S. Civil Supplies Deptt., Spl. Dy. Tahasildars/ Dy Tahasildars/ Officer of
Civil Supply Deptt., Request for implementation of Six Point Formula for
transfer – Modified Proceedings issued - Reg.
Ref: - 1) Representation 21-7-2001 received from Sri. Venkateshwara Rao, Dy.

Tahasildar, Civil Suplies, Ananthapur.
2) Proceeding No: 6/116/OMC/SPF/2001, Dt:04-09-2002 of One Man
Commission (SPF).
3) Representation dated 30-10-2002 received from Sri M. Venkateswara
Rao, Dy. Tahasildar, Civil Suplies.
* * *
Sri. M. Venkateshwar Rao, Dy. Tahasildar (C.S), O/o. DSO, Ananthapur in his
representation 1st cited has stated that he was born and brought up in Hyderabad falling
under Zone VII, and that he joined in Civil Suplies Department as Record Assistant in the
Office of the Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Hyderabad in the year 1983, thereafter he was
posted to Adilabad District as Dy. Tahaslidar (Civil Supplies) and later he was transferred
to the O/o The Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad as Superintendent in the year 1997. He
has further stated that the Department considered his case as Dy. Tahasildar (C.S),
Ananthapur and justifiably, he could have been continued as Superintendent in the O/o.
the Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad or transfer to any circle in Hyderabad or any
District adjacent to Hyderabad in Zone-VII, as he was a physically handicapped person.
The request of the petitioner was examined by the Commission and it was observed
that the Transfer from a Special Office or Establishment as per Para 14 (c) of the
Presidential Order to a Zonal cadre can be done only if the State Government have made a
provision to this effect in the special Rules issued to the cadres of the Department vide
Para 10 (a) of the clarification G.O.P.728, dated 18-11-1975. No such provision has been
made in the Spl. Rules of Civil Supplies Department pertaining to the posts of Dy.
Tahasildars of Civil Supplies or Superintendents, so far in spite of the recommendation of
this Commission earlier while reviewing the Departmental cadres.
Hence the transfer from Chief Rationing Office Hyderabad which has been declared
as a special office / Establishment under G.S.R. 526(E) to any Zone is in violation of
Presidential Order as per Para 14 (C) therein.
Therefore the Commission finds that the petitioner has to be brought back to his
original organisation i.e., Chief Rationing Office, Hyderabad.
J.M. GIRGLANI
To: -
The Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies,
E.O. Secy. to Govt., Secretariat, A.P.,
Hyderabad.
Copy to: -
1) Sri. Venkateshwara Rao, Dy. Tahasildar (C.S), O/o DSO, Ananthapur
2) SF/SC
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
30
Lr.No.6/33/OMC(A)/2001-3, Dated 17/09/2002.
From
R.Rama Krishna
Deputy Secretary to OMC (SPF)
Room No: 320,
„H‟ Block, 1st Floor,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri K.Laxmaiah,
Farm Foreman Grade II,
O/o Asst. Director of Sericulture,
Karimnagar District.
Sir,
Sub: Sericulture Department – Estt. – OMC (SPF) Dept., Representation

of Sri K.Laxmaiah, Farm Foreman, Gr. II, O/o Asst. Director of
Sericulture, Karimnagar.
Ref: Your representation to OMC (SPF), dated 18/07/2001 and 25/07/2002.
* * *
With reference to your representation cited, I am directed to state that once a

person is appointed in the merit quota in any district where he is a non-local he has no
right to claim a transfer to a district where he is a local and that the person make a
request to Government who may consider it in light of the transfer policy. But not as a
right under the Presidential Order.
In light of the above, I therefore, request you to approach the Government through
proper channel for redressal of grievances.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
31
Lr. No.11/OMC/NLG/2/2001, Dt. 09-10-2002
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri. A.Janardhan Reddy,
A.P Revenue Services Association,
Branch: Nalgonda,
Nalgonda District.
Sir,
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Minutes of the Meeting held by OMC with officials of Nalgonda
District and Representatives of Unions and individual Petitioners at Warangal
on 30-07-2001 in the O/o Collector, Warangal – Minutes Communicated –
Reg.
Ref: 1. Minutes of the Meeting held on 30-07-2001 communicated vide D.O.Lr.No.

11/OMC/NLG/2/2001, dated 30-08-2001.
2. From the Secretary, APPSC Lr.No. 818/RS V/OMC/2002 dated 01-05-
2002.
3. Your Lr.No. nill, Dated 01-06-2002.
* * *
During the meeting with OMC on 30-07-2001, it was brought to the notice of the
OMC that in the year 1991, five Dy. Tahsildars were allotted to Nalgonda District. Out of
them three from the outside zone. In this connection I would like to inform you that the
information furnished on the allotment of Dy. Tahsildars to Nalgonda district from outside
zone has been examined by the Commission in detail, and the Commission has come finds
that the APPSC has allotted to the zone No VI. Dy. Tahsildars of whom 55 were locals and
23 non-loals. Nalgonda is one of the Districts of this zone. The ratio of this allotment
works out to 70.5:29.5. Of these any number of locals or non-locals can go to a particular
District. That is of no consequence. As the ratio is zonal for the Zonal Cadre. Hence,
there is no ground for complaint and the issue is dropped.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
32
Letter No.3/OMC/A/2002-3, Dated:18-10-2002
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri S. Laxma Reddy,
Dist. Registrar,
Sri Balaji Dist.,
Tirupathi
Sir,
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Violation of SPF in Zone V and VI in selection to the post of
Reserve Sub-Registrar – Reg.
Ref: Your Representation to OMC (SPF) dt.09/05/2002.
* * *
I invite your attention to the reference cited, and to inform that your representation
has been examined in consultation with the APPSC., Hyderabad after the personal Hearing
extended to you along with the officials of APPSC. The Commission observed no violation
of Presidential Order in the selection to the post of Reserve Sub-Registrar in Zone V and VI
held in 1976 – 77. Hence, representation is rejected.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copy to:
S.F/S.C

32
Letter No.3/OMC/A/2002-3, Dated:18-10-2002
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri M.Chandra Bhushan Reddy,
Cane Regulation Inspector,
Bodhan, Nizamabad District.
Sir,
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Representation from Sri M. Chandra Bhushan Reddy, Agricultural
Officer for Re-allotment to zone V from Zone I – Reg.
Ref: Your Representation to OMC (SPF) dt.04/05/2002.
* * *
With reference to your representation cited you are informed that your request has
been examined in detail after personal hearing. The decision to permit absorption of an
individual by a Department is purely Government‟s prerogative. There is no case for
intervention by the Commission as no issue under Presidential Order is involved in the
matter.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
34
Lr.No.06/52/OMC/(A.1)/2001, dated 06/11/2002.
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri B. Rajeswar Rao,
Forest Range Officer (Retd.)
Near Venkateshwara Temple,
Narsampet (Post & Mandal)
Warangal Dist.
Sir,
Sub: OMC – Representation submitted to OMC regarding violation of Six Point
Formula – Reg.
Ref: Your representation to OMC (SPF) dated 06-08-2001.
* * *
I am to invite your attention to your representation cited, and to inform that your
case has been examined in consultation with the Prl. Chief Conservator of Forests,
Hyderabad. However since it was informed that your appeal in O.A No.5763/2001 on the
same issues is pending in A.P Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, this Commission
cannot consider your representation.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copy to:
The Prl. C.C.F.,
„Aranya Bhavan‟
Saifabad,
Hyderabad.
SF/SC
35
Lr.No.11/OMC/KNL/2/2001, dated 07/11/2002.
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
The President,
Rayalaseema Employees Association,
H No. 46/311, Budhawar Peta,
Kurnool 518 002.
Sir,
Sub: OMC – SPF – Violation in the implementation of SPF in Electrical Inspectorate
(Govt.) Department – Rectification – Reg.
Ref: 1. Representation of Sri B. Lambodaram, President, Rayalaseema Employees

Association dated 27/07/2002.
2. From the Energy (Services) Dept., Memo No. 5798/SER. A1/2001-2, dated
27/12/2001, 05/07/2002 and 17/10/02.
3. From the OMC Lr.No.11/OMC/KNL/2/2001, dated 21/08/2002 and
01/10/2002.
*****
I am directed to invite your attention to the references cited, and the Hearing held
on 29-08-2002 on your representation by the One Man Commission. In the light of the
common Judgement pronounced by the Hon‟ble A.P Administrative Tribunal on 24-04-
1996 in O.A Nos. 2345, 5321 and 5454 of 1995 this Commission concludes that as the
representation pertains to the staff above Jr. Asst. level the Commission cannot take any
cognizance of the petition in view of the item number 10 of G.S.R 529(E) which places
such staff outside the purview of Presidential Order under sub para (8) of para 3 of
Presidential Order on services.
This is for favour of your information.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copy to: for One Man Commission (SPF)
The Energy Dept., for information.
The Chief Electrical Inspector, A.P., Hyd. for information and necessary action.
SF/SC.
36
Lr.No.06/68/OMC-A/2001,_Dated 07/11/2002
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Smt. A. Gnana Sree,
Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering,
Govt. Polytechnic for Minorities,
Nallapadu,
Guntur,.
Sir,
Sub: APPSC - OMC (SPF) – Representation of Smt. A. Gnana Sree, Lecturer in
G.P.College Nallapadu, Guntur – Request for change of zone- I to VI - Reg.
Ref : Your Representation dated 26/08/2001 addressed to the OMC (SPF), GAD.
* * *
With reference to your representation the matter has been got examined by the
Commissioner of Technical Education, APPSC and the Govt. in the Education Department.
It was found in the process that the post of “Associate Lecturer” at the time of your
recruitment was a “Gazetted post with State wide jurisdiction” – and the same was not
included in the Third Schedule of the Presidential Order in the Specified Gazetted cadre,
for consideration on Zonal basis. Neither the post can be treated, in retrospect, as a
Specified Gazetted cadre post.
Hence you are informed that no violation of Presidential Order can be attributed to
your appointment as Associate Lecturer and the Commission cannot take any action in the
matter.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copy to:
The Commissioner of Technical Education,
B.R.K.R Bhavan, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad.
37
Lr.No.11/OMC/K/2002, dated 22/11/2002.
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri S.Ranga Rathnam,
Lecturer in Chemistry,
Govt. Degree College,
Thiruvuru,
Krishna District,
Andhra Pradesh.
Sir,
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Education Department – Implementation of SPF – G.O.MS.No.610
– Transfer from Zone II to Zone VI – Reg.
Ref: 1.Your letter dated 04/03/2002.

2. From the Director of Collegiate Education Lr.Rc.No.781 /SER.IV-2/2001,
dated 31/07/2002.
* * *
With reference to your representation first cited you are informed that your request
has been examined in detail in consultation with the Director of Collegiate Education, and
it was found that the Commission does not come into the picture in your case, since it is
not a grievance under the Presidential Order.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
for One Man commission (SPF)
Copy to:
The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Nampally,
Hyderabad for information.

38
Lr. No.06/61/OMC-B.A1/2001, Dated: 23-11-2002
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Dr. B. Sailu,
Retd. District Educational Officer,
1-1-365/19, Gandhinagar,
Musheerabad,
Hyderabad.
Sir,
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Representation from Dr. B. Sailu, Retd. District Educational
Officer, Nizamabad District – Grievance – Rectification of Seniority - Reg.
Ref: 1. Your letter dated 23.08.2001.

2. From the Commissioner and Director of School Education Lr.No.371/(C1-
2)C2-1/2001, dt 07/09/2002.
* * *
With reference to your letter cited, I inform you that your representation has been
examined in consultation with the Commissioner and Director of School Education and it
was found that it contains no grievance to be redressed by this Commission.
2. However, if you still feel aggrieved, you may seek a personal Hearing of the
case before this Commission at the earliest.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
39
Lr.No.06/14/OMC/SPF/B A.1/2001, dated 26/11/2002.
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri A. Satyanarayana,
Jr. Lecturer,
Chemistry Dept.,
Govt. Junior College,
Rayadurg 515 865.
Sir,
Sub: OMC SPF – Grievance of Sri A.Satyanarayana – Transfer from Zone
IV to Zone V – Reg.
Ref: 1. Your letter dated 13/07/2001.

2. From the Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education Lr. Rc. No.
C2/2748/2001, dated 28/08/2001.
* * *
With reference to your representation first cited, it is informed that your request
has been examined in detail, in consultation with the Commissioner and Director of
Intermediate Education, and it was found that your request was for a zonal transfer from
zone IV to zone V, which is purely an administrative matter. The Commission does not
come into picture in such case, since it is not a grievance under the Presidential Order.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copy to:
The Director and Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Nampally, Hyderabad
for information.
40
Proceeding No:06/114/OMC-A/2001, Dt:26-12-2002
Sub:- APDDCF Ltd., - Representation of Sri. R. Ashok Babu, working as P.A. to

General Manager (GA) in the Office of the MD, APDDCF Ltd. –
Implementation of Presidential Order in the promotion to
the post of P.S. – Proceedings – issued.
Ref:- 1. Representation of Sri. R.Ashok Babu, P.A. to G.M., APDDC.Fedn. Ltd.,

Lalapet, Hyd. Dt:18-7-2001.
2. From the M.D., APDDC Fed. Ltd., Letter No:26565/Admn.V2/ 85,
Dt:23-1-2002, Addressed to the OMC (SPF).
3. Representation of Sri. R.Ashok Babu, P.A. to G.M., APDDC. Fed. Ltd.,
dt:6-8-2002.
4. Letter No: 06/114/OMC(A)/2001-4,dt:2-11-02 from the OMC regarding the
intimation for Personal Hearing of the case on 18-11-2002.
5. Further Representations of Sri. R.Ashok Babu, P.A. to G.M.(GA) APDDCF
Ltd., Lalapet, Hyd., addressed to OMC (SPF) dated: 22-11-02 & 20-12-02.
* * *
The Petitioner represented that he was deprived of his promotion as

Private Secretary to M.D. primarily, due to the following aspects:-
(1) Non implementation of the Presidential Order by the Authorities.
(2) Due to the modification of the Service Rules by the Board – introducing “
Degree” as a necessary qualification for promotion to the post of Private
Secretary.
(3) Including the post of “Junior Manager” (Zonal post) as a feeder category of
Private Secretary which is a post confined to the Head Office only.
The statement of the M.D. vide his letter dt:23-1-2002 that the Six Point Formula is
not applicable to the A.P. Dairy Development Coop. Federation Limited, since it is an
autonomous body, do not appear to be tenable in view of the resolutions of the Federation
“ to implement the zonal system under the Six Point Formula” (vide Federation Circular
No: Per/V-2/26565/85, Dt:13-11-85 and vide the Minutes No:21,14 of the 85 th Meeting of
the Board of Directors of the A.P. Dairy Development Coop. Federation Limited, held on 2-
2-91) – by appointing a Spl. Committee to examine the issues of Six Point Formula. The
action taken further on this matter though not explained latter, the implementation of
Presidential Order is evident in the zonalisation of its cadres.
While it is so, the appointment of a Junior Manager belonging to Zone – III to the
post of Private Secretary to M.D. which is a post of the Head Office becomes a violation of
the localization Scheme adopted by the Federation.
Since, according to Para 5(1) of the Presidential Order and as per the Para 4(1) of
the Instructions issued in the U.O.Note No: 963/SPF-A/89-1, G.A. (SPF) Detp., dt: 21-10-
88 no specific Rules have been made by the Federation for the transfer of a person from a
„local cadre‟ to „Head Office‟. The action of the Federation under its localization scheme
becomes wrong.
Regarding the modifications made in the Rules, the Federation made certain
changes in the Rules for the Feeder category by including a non feeder category post of
“Junior Manager” and the qualification upgrading the same to a “Degree” for the post of
P.S. to M.D. However, the Co-Operative Tribunal in its order CTA No:160/99 dated: 31-1-
2000 has struck down the “Service Regulations” framed by the Federation as invalid since
they were not approved by the „Registrar‟. In consequence the promotion given to Sri.
K.Venkateswara Rao, Junior Manager (from Zone III) becomes null and void since the
original Rules do not provide the channel for a “Junior Manager” to the post of Private
Secretary to M.D. and similarly the verdict of the Cooperative Tribunal eliminates the
stipulation of the “Graduation” qualification for promotion to the post of Private Secretary
to M.D., as the same was not provided for in the Original Rules of the Dairy Development
Department.
Further the orders issued in the G.O.Ms.No: 134, Forest and Rural Development
Department, dt:23-3-1981 provides for the protection of the earlier Rules and Service
conditions to the employees of the Dairy Development Department transferred to the fold
of the Federation.
In the Circumstances this Commission opines that, in violation of localization

scheme based on the Presidential Order, injustice has been done to the Petitioner in his
promotion to the post of the P.S. to M.D., in the A.P. Dairy Development Coop. Federation
limited, inspite of his eligibility to the post with reference to the feeder category,
qualification, service and seniority. Hence the Commission holds that “Shri. R. Ashok
Babu, P.A. to G.M. (GA), O/o. the M.D., A.P. Dairy Development Coop. Federation Limited
shall be promoted to the post of P.S. to M.D., with effect from the date on which the
promotion has been wrongly given to Sri. K. Venkateswara Rao, Junior Manager (Zone
III).
Sri. K.Venkateswara Rao, Junior Manger (Zone-III) may be repatriated to Zone III
as his posting in the Head Office also becomes a violation of the localization scheme of
Presidential Order adopted by the Federation since the Rules of the Federation do not
provide for the transfer of a Zonal category post to a post in the Head Office, specifically.
Government in A.H. & Fisheries Department is, therefore, requested to direct the
M.D. A.P. Dairy Development Coop. Federation Limited to take action as recommended
herein above and to send compliance report to the Govt. marking a copy to this
Commission, at the earliest.
(J.M.GIRGLANI)
To:
The Prl. Secy. to Govt.,
A.H. & F.(Dairy) Dept.,
Copy to:
The Managing Director,
A.P.D.D.C. Federation Ltd.,
Lalapet, Hyderabad.
Sri. R. Ashok Babu,

P.A. to G.M. (GA),
O/o. M.D. A.P.D.D.C.F. Ltd.,
Lalapet, Hyderabad.
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER

ONE MAN COMMESSION
Lr.No.6/114/OMC/A3/2001, Dt.04-04-2003.
From:
J. M. Girglani, IAS., (Retd.)
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
The Prl. Secy. to Government,
A.H.D.D. & F (A.H.II) Department.
Sir,
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Proceedings issued on the representation of Sri R. Ashok Babu,
P.A. to G.M. (G.A) – Further instructions – issued.
Ref: 1) OMC (SPF) Proc.No.6/114/OMC-A/2001, Dt.26-12-2002.

2) From the MD, APDDC F Ltd., copy of Lr. No. AH-I/B1/
B29/2003, Dt.24-03-2003.
*****
With reference to your letter cited the issue has been re-examined. The Board of
Directors of the APDDCF Ltd., had adopted the Presidential Order in the Minute No. 43 of
the 4th Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 15.10.1981, which was withdrawn in the
Board Minute No. 21 of the 13th meeting on 26.03.1982. Again vide Federation Circular
No.PER/V-2/26565/85, dt: 13.11.1985 and vide the minutes No. 21, 14 of the 85th
Meeting of the Board of Directors of the APDDCF Ltd., and on 02.02.1991, the Board has
again decided to adopt and implement the Presidential Order.
The Presidential Order once adopted voluntarily by an Organisation cannot be

revoked at will, since, during the years of implementation certain recruitments, transfers,
deputations etc. would have already taken place and the same cannot be undone after the
discontinuance of the implementation at a later date. Once localised cadres are
constituted these cannot be capriciously delocalised as that causes prejudice and jeopardy
to the local candidates. In individual cases too localisation scheme once adopted has to be
applied justly and uniformly, not selectively or arbitrarily. Once adopted it is the principles
of the Presidential Order that must guide the action of the Federation without favour or
prejudice to individual candidates of any local area / zone.
In that context and spirit the Commission‟s proceedings may be followed, in

fairness to employees of all the local cadres.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copy to Secretary to Government,

General Administration (SPF), with a request to take
necessary further action in the matter.
The Managing Director, A.P. Dairy Development Federation,

Lalapet, Hyderabad.
41
Lr.No:06/80/OMC(A1)/2001-4, Dt.02-01-2003
From
J.M. Girglani, I.A.S., (Retd.),
Room No.320, 2nd Floor,
K – Block, A.P. Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To:
The Secy. to Govt.,
Genl.Admn. (Services) Dept.,
A.P., Secretariat,
Hyderabad.(w.e.)
Sir,
Sub: - OMC (SPF) – Implementation of G.O.Ms.No:610, G.A.(SPF-A) Department,

Dated:30-12-1985 and provisions of Presidential Order, 1975 –
Representation of Sri. R. Sampath, S/o: Rajaiah, Mamidala Palli (V),
Karimnagar District – Reg.
Ref: - 1) Representation from Sri. R.Sampath, S/o: Rajaiah, Mamidal

Palli (V), Veenavanka (M), Karimnagar Dist., dt:9-7-2001.
2) Lr.No:6/80/OMC(SPF)/2001-1, Dt:19-12-2001 of this Commission.
3) From the Superintendant of Police, Karimnagar – Lr.C.No:
A1/02/2002, Dt:21-02-2002.
4) Lr.No:6/80/OMC(A)/2002-2, Dt:15-6-2002 of this Commission.
5) From the Superintendant of Police, Karimnagar,
Lr.C.No:A1/2/242/2002, Dt:28-6-2002.
6) G.O.Ms.No.8, G.A.(SPF) Dept., Dt. 08-01-2002.
***
In the reference 1st cited an unemployee from Karimnagar District Sri. R. Sampath,
submitted a representation to this commission (copy enclosed) stating that he attended an
Interview on 18-5-1995 for the post of A.R.Police Constables in Karimnagar Dist., but, was
not selected due to some irregularities in the selection process i.e., selection of non-locals
and candidates with recommendations.
2. A report from the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar Dist. has been called for on
the issue vide his letter 2nd cited (copy enclosed), the Superintendent of Police,
Karimnagar vide his letter 3rd cited (copy enclosed) stated that Sri. R. Sampath had
applied for the post of A.R. Police Constable in Karimnagar Dist. during, 1994-95
recruitment with Regd.No:877840. He was called for the oral Interview conducted on 18-
5-1995. He belongs to O.C. He stood at 285 th place in the merit list. The last candidate
who was selected in the O.C. category stood at 153rd place in the merit list. Hence the
applicant was not selected. The rule of reservation as per S.P.F. has been followed
strictly. No irregularities have crept in the Interview as alleged by the applicant. The
allegations made by the applicant in his representation were false and baseless. In view of
the above facts, no further action was needed on his representation and it deserves to be
lodged.
3. After examining the report of the S.P., Karimnagar Dist., and going through the
record, this Commission vide letter 4th cited elicited the following in formation from the
S.P. Karimnagar :-
1. No. of Vacancies notified.

2. No. of local candidates selected total and under O.C.
3. No. of non – local candidates selected total & under. O.C. list.
4. What was his number in the integrated merit list ?
5. Was there written examination or only interview ?
4. In response to the above, the S.P., Karimnagar furnished the following reply Point
wise :-
1. A total number of 292 vacancies were notified for ARPCs posts during 1994-
1995 recruitment.
2. A total number of 234 local candidates were selected. Among them 128 were
under O.C. category. Out of 128, 106 were under local O.C. category and 22
were under non - local O.C. category.
3. A total number of 58 non – local candidates were selected and out of them 22
were under O.C. category.
4. His number was at 285th place in the integrated merit list.

5. There was only interview and no written examination was there to the posts of
A.R.P.Cs.
5. Having gone through the whole matter, this Commission observed, that the
recruitment in question has been conducted with the conception that the vacancies are to
be filled with “80% locals and 20% non – locals”. This concept adopted by the S.P.,
Karimnagar is in contravention of the Presidential Order, under which “the preference (or
reservation ) is only for locals to the extent of 80%. The remaining 20% is open quota to
be selected on merit basis. There is no reservation for non-locals as such. In the 20%
merit quota both locals and non-locals could come. The Procedure for recruitment is
clearly laid down in G.O.P. No:763, G.A. (SPF-A) Deptt., dt:15-11-1975 which is to be
followed by all the Departments. Any contravention in this regard tantamounts to the
violation of the Presidential Order. Now that procedure has been revised in G.O.Ms.No.8,
G.A.(SPF.A) Department, Dt. 08-01-2002.
6. The S.P. Karimnagar District has been guided in this regard and has also been
advised to rectify the situation on certain lines. (copy of the letter addressed to the S.P.
Karimnagar is enclosed herewith for ready reference)
7. Further this Commission opines that this is not a singular case wherein such
misconception of the Presidential Order has happened. And hence holds that the
Procedures/ Guidelines as elucidated in G.O.P.No: 763, G.A. (SPF-A) Deptt., dt:15-11-75
as revised in G.O.Ms.No.8, cited 6th above are to be reiterated to the various Heads of
Departments to ensure the strict implementation of the Presidential Order.
8. You are therefore, in the instant case, requested to clarify the Procedure as
envisaged in G.O.P.No:763, G.A.(SPF-A) Deptt., dt:15-11-1975 as revised in G.O.Ms.No.8,
cited 6th above, to the D.G. and I.G. of Police, Hyderabad, who in turn may clarify the
same to the S.Ps for due rectification of the recruitments made, if any, adopting the
erroneous method, as it happened in the case of recruitment made by the S.P.,
Karimnagar.Dist.
9 The action taken in this regard may kindly be intimated to this Commission, at the
earliest.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
42
Lr.No.06/47/OMC/SPF/B1/2001, Dt. 04.01.2003

From
K- Block, A.P. Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Dr. Yarasuri Ramananda Sarma,
201, A – Block,
Kubera Towers,
Tirumalagiri,
Secunderabad – 500 015.
Sir,
Sub: OMC – Representation of Dr. Yarasuri Ramananda Sarma, Jr.

Lecturer in Chemistry, Govt. Jr. College, S.P. Road, Sec‟bad –
Regarding.
Ref: 1. Your representation Dt. 17.07.2001.

2. From the Commissioner & Director of Intermediate Education
Lr.Rc.No.C2/2748/2001, Dt. 28/08/2001 and 07/12/2002.
***
With reference to your representation cited, you are informed that the Commission
examined your request for Zonal Allotment to city cadre and for promotion from
06/02/1974, in consultation with the Commissioner of Intermediate Education and as per
the report of the the Commissioner of Intermediate Education since your plea was already
considered by the Government and orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.433/HE (IE-1) Dept.
Dt.29/06/2002 restoring your seniority in the city cadre, the Commission found no point to
interfere in your case and the matter has been closed at this end.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
43
Proceeding No: OMC/06/AEs/A1/2001-8, Dt: 09-01-2003.
Sub:- I & CAD – Representation form the office bearers of Hyderabad Engineers
Association – Implementation of Six Point Formula and G.O.Ms.No:610 –
Hearing held on 30-11-2002 at 3.30 pm – Proceedings – Issued.
Ref:- 1) Representation from the office bearers of the Hyderabad Engineers

Association Presented to OMC on 6-9-2001.
2) From the E.N.C. (Admn.Wing), I & CAD Deptt., Hyd. –
Lr.No:Rc/ENC/D3/21963/2001, Dt: 15-10-2001.
3) Minutes of Meeting held on 2-1-2002 at 11.30 am. in the Chamber of
OMC – Communicated vide D.O.Lr.No:OMC/06/AEs/2001-5, Dt: 18-3-
2002.
4) From the E.N.C.(AW) I & CAD Dept., Hyd. –
Lr.No:RC/ENC/D3/20427/2001, Dt: 29-8-2002.
***
The Petitioners and the Dy. Engineer – in - Chief (Administration) appeared for the
Hearing.
Heard the Petitioners and the official version. The matter pertains to the claim of
certain Engineers of the Irrigation Department regarding the violations in the
implementation of the Presidential Order in the “ Allotments” made to various Zones. The
violations are represented to have happened in the following manner:-
1) Wrong allotments made after 18-10-75 that are to be rectified.

2) Repatriation of non – zonal persons working in zone V and VI.
3) Imbalances in direct recruitment procedure (to be rectified) through APPSC.
The Dy. ENC. (Admn.) quoting the report already submitted by ENC (Admn.) gave
the following explanation item – wise regarding the grievances:-
ITEM – 1 :- WRONG ALLOTMENTS MADE AFTER 18-10-75 THAT ARE TO BE

RECTIFIED.
Consequent on promolgamation of Presidential Order Government have constituted

a Committee in G.O. Ms.No:784, General Administration ( SPF-A) Department, dt: 24-11-
75 for allotment of Zones to the employees, both Gazetted and Non – Gazetted and
Technical / Non – Technical, who were in service as on 18-10-75. The Committee issued
allotment orders based upon the guidelines contained in Paragraph 4 of Presidential Order.
Subsequently, certain service Associations have contested against the zonal

allotment made by the Government in Zone – V & VI and requested to re-allot them to
their native zones. Later certain Assistant Executive Engineers of Zone – V & VI have also
filed O.As against zonal allotments of certain Assistant Executive Engineers in Hon‟ble A.P.
Administrative Tribunal for their re – allotment to their native zones from Zone – V. The
OAs are still pending in the Hon‟ble A.P. A.T.
In another OA, in the meanwhile, the A.P. Administrative Tribunal pronounced its
judgement dt: 09-11-2000 directing - - - -
“to finalise the seniority list after inclusion of the applicants and others
of Zone – V in the respective place and if necessary by placing them in
place of other non – zonal candidates who are illegally allotted to Zone
V and take effective steps for repatriation of the Officers of other
zones to their respective zones”.
Aggrieved by the above judgement the respondents of the O.A. filed W.Ps in Andhra
Pradesh High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court ordered “ Status quo as on that day to
be maintained”.
Necessary appeal petitions are being filed by the Govt. on these W.Ps.
ITEM – 2 :- REPATRIATION OF NON – ZONAL PERSONS WORKING IN ZONE

– V AND VI.
The Non – Zonals who were working in Zone – V and VI after 18-10-75 have been
identified and they have been repatriated to their native zones as mentioned below:
(1) Out of the 1292 employees, 574 who were recruited after 18-10-75 in
different categories were repatriated to their native zones and
accommodated against clear vacancies.
(2) In respect of remaining 718 employees proposals were sent to Government
for creation of supernumerary posts for accommodating these employees in
their respective zones. Accordingly, 718 supernumerary posts were created
in G.O.Ms.No: 462, Irrigation & CAD (Ser.I) Department, Dt:13-10-86 for
their repatriation to other zones.
(3) However in the allotments made by the Government, it was observed that
102 members, who were appointed prior to 18-10-75, were allotted to
Zone – V & VI in violation of the Presidential Order.
ITEM – 3:- IMBALANCES IN DIRECT RECRUITMENT PROCEDURE (TO BE

RECTIFIED) THROUGH ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION.
The Dy. ENC (Admn.) averred that a policy decision has to be taken at Government
level in consultation with General Administration Department (SPF)
The Representative of the association pleaded that a detailed report has been
submitted by the Engineer – in – Chief in his letter Dated: 7-12-95 identifying 102 persons
who have been allotted to zone V and VI in violation of the Presidential Order duly
explaining the violation for each person and the Government took no action. He added,
however, that subsequently the Engineer-in-Chief in his letter dated: 9-9-96 have
informed the Government that the repatriation of the above personnel may be kept in
abeyance in view of the Court Cases pending in the Honorable APAT. Hence, the
Representative of the Association asserted that the action of the Engineer-in-Chief in
addressing the Govt. to “keep in abeyance” is not correct as there was no stay on the
implementation of the G.O.Ms.No:610, dt: 30-12-1985 and it only caused injustice to the
legitimate interests of the employees of zone V and VI.
On hearing both the sides it is observed that the case pertains to the 102 J.Es. and
Dy. E.Es. who have allegedly been allotted to Zones V and VI in violation of Presidential
Order. The Engineer-in-Chief sent a proposal to the Government on 7-12-95 for the
repatriation of these 102 officers to their respective local cadres in the zones other than V
and VI. Before Government could take any action on these proposals, the Engineer-in-
Chief requested the Government to keep these proposals of 7-12-95 in abeyance vide his
letter dated: 9-9-96 on the ground that certain cases were pending in the APAT. In this
regard, he particularly referred to the judgement of APAT in O.A. 6116/93 dated: 15-6-95
in respect of AEEs. In para 13 of the Judgement, the APAT had said that any attempt for
either fresh allotment or change of allotment would further complicate the controversies.
According to the Engineers Association, the issue in this O.A. was not connected
with the proposal of repatriation and the observation in para 13 of the judgement is in the
nature of an “obiter dictum” not an order with regard to the repatriation. Further they
informed that even on the main issue which is unconnected with the repatriation, the
Judgement itself was set aside by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and remitted back to the
APAT which disposed off the mater in its OA No: 3719/1996, dt:9-11-1996. This
Judgement of the APAT was taken to the High Court in appeal. The High Court set aside
the main issue viz., that of upgradation and weightage etc. and the “ obiter dictum” of
para 13 mentioned above was not an issue before the High Court. Thus, they contend
that the Engineer – in – Chief‟s request for keeping his original proposal of repatriation in
abeyance is based on totally irrelevant and wrong premise.
In the view of the Association it is clear what the “status quo” in this connection
means, even with regard to the 102 persons. It could mean that they should continue in
the same posts and not necessarily in the same zone. However, it clearly means that they
cannot be promoted until the Writ Petitions are disposed of. But the authorities have
promoted them, which is a misapplication of the “status quo” orders. In consequence, the
Association submitted that the Petitioners of the W.Ps are working & some retired as SEs
and the Respondents got promotions and are continuing in higher posts.
The Dy. ENC. submitted that in a further report of the ENC (Admn.) necessary
proposals were sent to Government together with service particulars and remarks against
each name for taking necessary action with regard to 102 AEEs / Dy.E.Es. who were
allotted to zones V & VI by the Government as recommended by the “Allotment
Committee” Constituted under para 4 and sub para 2 (a) to (e) of the Presidential Order.
As against 102 employees, 98 were already retired from service and only 4 are in service.
On this peculiar situation the Government in Memo.No:37608/Ser.IV.1/

93-7, dt:27-11-96, has informed that the GAD has opined as follows:-
I) G.O.Ms.No:610, G.A.(SPF) Dept., dt:30-12-85 did not superseded G.O.Ms.No:519,

G.A.(SPF.A) Dept., Dt:18-11-85.
II) As per G.O.Ms.No:519, GA(SPF) Dept., dt:18-11-85 the initial allotment and
organisation of local cadre should not be re-opened. However, action will be taken
as per the outcome of pending O.As. in APAT.
Hence the ENC (Admn.) concluded that out of 102 persons recruited prior to 18-10-
1975, 98 persons were already retired from service and only 4 persons are in service and
working as Superintending Engineers and Engineer-in-Chief which are state wide posts and
hence no need for repatriation. Moreover, there are no Govt., orders to take action on
those appointed prior to 18-10-75; neither the G.O.Ms.No: 610 is specific on this issue.
In the final analysis it is seen that in this case the action as per the clause 3 (a) of
the G.O.Ms.No:610, G.A.(SPF-A) Dept., dt:30-12-85. viz…
(3) (a) In respect of appeals filed against orders of allotment made

under paragraph 4 of the Presidential Order of 1975 to the
competent authority in time and where such appeals are
still pending disposal, all such cases where details are
furnished by the T.N.G.Os union or individuals, shall be
disposed of by 31-3-1986.
has not been completed and the appeal in this regard is to be deemed as still pending.
Unless the Appeals are finalized by the Government through an “Allotment Committee”
Constituted as per the Presidential Order these initial allotments, which got locked up in
litigation, shall not become final as clarified in the U.O.Note No:1933/SPF.A/78-1,
G.A.(SPF.A) Dept., dt:26-9-78. Ipsofacto the orders issued in the G.O.Ms.No:519, G.A.
(SPF.A) Dept., dt:18-11-1985 do not apply to this issue. Hence the Government, now,
has to act on the report sent by the ENC (Admn) I & CAD Dept., get the matter
deliberated by the Allotment Committee Constituted under the G.O.Ms.No:124,
G.A.(SPF.A) Dept., dated 7-3-92 and issue a Speaking Order, bringing a finality to the
issue.
However it is also clarified that all other bilateral cases do not come in the way of
such a disposal since this disposal is on the basis of the petitions pending before the
“Allotment Committee” since years and hence deserves a quick disposal, to uphold the
solemn pledge given to the employees in the G.O.Ms.No: 610.
Government in Irrigation & Command Area Development Dept., is requested to
kindly take action accordingly.
J.M.GIRGLANI
To:
The Prl. Secy. to Govt.,
Irrigation & Command Are Development Dept.,
A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.
Copy to :
1. Engineer – in - Chief (Admn.)
Irrigation & Command Are Development Dept.,
Errummanzil, Hyderabad.
2. The General Secretary,
Hyderabad Engineers Association.
Qrt. No: B-72, Patigadda Colony, Secunderabad – 3.
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
44
Proc. No: 6/62/OMC/A2/Sericulture/2001, Dt: 19-02-2003.
Sub:- OMC (SPF) – Sericulture Department – Representation of Sri. B.P. Chandra

Sekhar, Farm Foreman, O/o. Asst. Director of Sericulture, Utnoor, Adilabad
Dist., - Request for transfer to his native Dist., i.e., Medak Dist. –
Proceedings on the Representation – Issued.
Ref:- 1) From Sri. B.P. Chandra Shekar, Farm Foreman, O/o. Asst.
Director of Sericulture, Utnoor, Adilabad Dist., Dt: 6-5-2002.
2) OMC Lr. No: OMC/6/120/OMC/2002, Dt: 29-05-2002.
3) Commissioner of Sericulture A.P. Hyderabad, Lr.Rc.No: 511/2002 /B4,
Dt: 5-7-2002.
* * *
Sri. B.P. Chandra Sekhar, Farm Foremen, O/o. Asst. Director of Sericulture, Utnoor,
Adilabad Dist., has submitted a representation to OMC (SPF) stating that he belongs to
Medak Dist., and that the Dist. Employment Exchange, Medak sponsored his name for the
post of Farm Foreman in Sericulture Department during the year 1982-83 and he was
selected for six months training at CSR & TI, Mysore, vide Memo. Rc. No: 3125/B-1-82,
Dated: 20-07-82 of Director of Sericulture. After completion of his training he was
appointed as Farm Foreman at Utnoor, Adilabad Dist., and working there since his
appointment. He contended that he was sponsored by Dist. Employment Exchange,
Medak Dist., but was posted to Adilabad Dist., instead of in Medak Dist., in contravention
of the Presidential Order and hence requested to post him in his native District i.e., Medak
Dist.
The Commissioner of Sericulture, who was consulted in the matter, has reported
that the individual was sponsored through the Dist. Employment Exchange, Medak for (6)
Months short term training at Mysore, commencing from 1-10-1982, and no appointment
order against any post was given. The Department has not also given any commitment
for appointment to a particular post in the Dist., and that the individual was appointed as
Farm Foreman in Adilabad Dist., in his office Proc.Rc.No:1440/84/B2, Dt:27-04-1984 by
shifting a post sanctioned in some other Dist., to implement some new schemes
sanctioned by the Govt., in Telengana area, without supporting staff, and that the orders
given by the Deptt., was accepted by the individual who joined in the Department
willingly.
He has further reported that now the individual has given willingness to work as
Panchayat Secretary in Medak Dist., and the Dist. Collector. Medak, was prepared to
accept the services of Sri. B.P. Chandrasekhar, Farm Foremen as Panchayat Secretary in
Medak Dist., provided the transfer of the individual from Adilabad Dist., to Medak Dist.,
was accorded by Govt. As such, the proposal for transfer of Sri. B.P. Chandra Sekhar was
sent to Govt., by the Commissioner of Sericulture in the prescribed proforma for
consideration in the existing vacancy of Panchayat Secretary available in the Medak Dist.,
The proposal is still pending with the Govt.
Having heard the petitioner and the version of the Department it was found that
the initial mistake was that in making the selection for training, the department should
have kept in view the number of vacancies in each District, because, the trained
candidates were ultimately to be appointed in to those vacancies. The merit list should
have been district – wise and postings should also have been on the basis of “Local
candidates for local cadre”. It is not even very certain whether candidates were called for
from the different District Employment Exchanges where Sericulture units were located. If
they did call for from different Districts then the appropriate thing would have been to
select for training, district-wise. However, whatever has happened is now „fait accompli‟ a
case of deviation from Presidential Order, intended or inadvertent, one can never know.
The Petitioner was posted not in the free merit quota where non – local can also
were selected, trained or posted. However, at this juncture the Petitioner working in
Adilabad Dist., cannot be ordered to be allotted back to Medak Dist., even if he takes last
rank in seniority at this distance of time, nor the creation of a supernumerary post can
be recommended. However, since the Collector, Medak Dist., has accepted to utilise the
services of the Petitioner as Panchayat Secretary in Medak District it would be appropriate
for the Govt., in the given circumstances, to approve his transfer from Adilabad Dist.,
to Medak Dist., for his appointment as Panchayat Secretary in one of the existing
vacancies, since his appointment in Adilabad Dist., was in violation of the
Presidential Order; The Govt., in Agrl. & Coop. (Sericulture) Department may issue
immediate orders in this regard to redress the grievance of the petitioner. Since this case
is likely to go into the Commission‟s Report in the category of “appointments in violation
of Presidential Order”, the matter be expedited.
J.M. GIRGLANI,
To
The Agriculture & Co-operation (Sericulture) Deptt.
The Commissioner of Sericulture, A.P. Hyderabad.
Copy to:
The Individual.
Stock File/Spare.
//FORWARD BY ORDER//
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
45
Proceedings No.6/49/OMC/A2/I&PR/2001, Dt.19-02-2003
Sub:- Information and Public Relations Department Furnishing of report on the

representation made by Sri Ch. Seetharam Reddy, Divisional Public
Relations Officer, Medak – Regarding filling up of all the vacancies with
persons of Directorate – Regarding.
Ref:- 1. Representation received from Sri Ch. Seetharam Reddy, Divisional Public
Relations Officer, Medak District.
2. OMC Letter No.6/OMC (SPF)/2001, Dt.05-03-2002.
3. From the Secy. to Govt. (poll)Lr.No.39212/I&PR/A3/01-5,
Dated 22-07-2002.
***
With reference to the correspondence cited, the matter has been examined.
Representation of Sri Ch. Seetharam Reddy, Divisional Public Relations Officer, Medak
District has the following points to make: -
(a) Sri Ch. Seetharam Reddy was appointed as Assistant Public Relations Officer
in the year 1985 along with one Sri Mattaiah.
(b) The both become elegible for promotion to the next post by 1989, duly
passing necessary Departmental Tests.
(c) Sri Mattaiah was promoted as Divisional P.R.O. in 1989.
(d) Sri Ch. Seetharam Reddy, was not promoted, along with Sri Mattaiah in
1989 inspite of the vacant posts available for the sole reason that certain
personnel, Sri Sadanandham and Sri Bhanumurthy, from the Office of the
Director of Information Public Relations were promoted and posted to Zone
VI, Medak District.
(e) In consequence the Petitioner Sri Ch. Seetharam Reddy was deprived of his
promotion till 1991.
The Department in its report stated that “there is a provision in the Rules for
promoting and posting candidates from the feeder channel of the Head of the Department
to Zones other than the ones to which the persons will be local” is not tenable in view of
the following position as envisaged in the Presidential Order: -
The basis of the postings on promotion from the HOD Offices, to different zones is
based on Executive Instructions. Presidential Order contemplates such postings only if a
“provision” is made in the special or Adhoc Rules applicable to the concerned post. In Para
10(a) of the Instructions in GOP No.728 G.A. (SPF) Department, Dt.01-11-1975 the word
“provision” in the main Para has to be interpreted as provision in the “Rules” not
“executive instructions”. If there is no such Rule, the posting of candidates on promotion
from HOD feeder channel to zones other than the ones to which the person would be local,
ought to be not in accordance with the Presidential Order.
The Adhoc-Rules issued for the post of the Divisional Public Relations Officer vide
G.O.Ms.No.455, G.A. (I &PR) Department, Dt.25-07-1990 do not have any “provision” as
envisaged in Para 10(a) of the GOP No.728, G.A.(SPF) Department, Dt. 01-01-1975.
In the circumstances, the Representation of Sri Ch. Seetharam Reddy, Divisional

Public Relations Officer, Medak is found to be based on a genuine grievance and his
contention, that the personnel from the feeder categories, working in the Office of the
Director of I & PR can not be considered for promotion and allotment to Zone VI as
Divisional Public Relations Officers, appears to be valied as per the Presidential Order.
Hence this Commission holds that Sri Ch. Seetharam Reddy shall be considered for
promotion to the post of Divisional Public Relations Officer with effect from the year 1989,
as per his original seniority in Zone VI, as was done in the case of Sri A. Mattaiah. With
regard to Sri Sadanandham and Sri Bhanumurty, since the Adhoc Rules provide for their
Promotion as Divisional Public Relations Officers in the 10 th vacancy of the promotion
cycle, their dates of promotion be reviewed with reference to their respective seniority and
they may be given postings to their respective “native zones” as per their seniority in the
Department. The Secretary (Poll) G.A.(I & PR) Department may take necessary action in
this regard.
Action taken in this regard may please be intimated to this Commission at the
earliest, since this case may have to be included in the “final report” of the Commission
under the “promotions given in violation of the Presidential order” category.
J.M. GIRGLANI
To
The Secy. to Government (Poll),
G.A. (I&PR) Department,
Copy to:
1. The Director of I & PR, A.P. Hyderabad.
2. Sri Ch. Seetharam Reddy, Divisional P.R.O., Medak.
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
46
Lr.No.6/11/OMC/A2/2001-4, Dt.19-02-2003.
From:
Room No.320, 2nd Floor, K- Block,
A.P. Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To:
Sri G. Santosh,
Asst. Engineer (Electrical),
A.P. Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
Sir,
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Certain Violation of Presidential Order in connection with 6

Point Formula – Grievances of Sri G. Santosh and other A.Es (Elec.) R&B
Deptt. Regarding.
Ref: 1. From Sri G. Santosh, A.E. (Elec.) R&B Deptt. Sectt. Section,
Hyd., Representation Dt. 22-08-2002 and 22-01-2003.
2. From Sri B. Krishna, A.E. (Elec.) Khairatabad Section, Hyd.,
Repn., Dt. Nil.
3. From Sri G.B. Arun Kumar, A.E. (Elec.) Guest House Section,
Hyd., Representation, Dt. Nil.
4. From Sri B. Ram Kumar, A.E.(Elec.) Jubilee Hills, Section, Representation,
Dt. Nil.
***
I am directed to invite your kind attention to the references cited and to inform that
your grievance pertains to the regularisation of the “gap period” consequent to your
transfer from one zone to other zone which is purely a service matter and has no bearing
on the Presidential Order.
Hence, this Commission did not find a reason to interfere into this matter. Your
representation is accordingly disposed off.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
for ONE MAN COMMITION (SPF)
Copy to:
Sri B. Krishna, Assistant Engineer (Elec.).
Sri G.B. Arunkumar, Assistant Engineer (Elec.).
Sri B. Ram Kumar, Assistant Engineer (Elec.).
SF/SC.
47
Lr.No.06/64/OMC(A.1)/2001-4, Dt.22-02-2003
From:
Room No.320, 2nd Floor, K- Block,
A.P. Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To:
Sri. L. Narsimloo,
Dy. Executive Engineer,
K.C. Canal (Modernization Project),
Sub Division No.4,
Allagadda,
Kurnool District.
Sir,
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Representation submitted to OMC (SPF) on violation of
Presidential Order – Reg.
Ref: Your representation dated 25-08-2001 submitted to OMC (SPF).
***
I am to invite your attention to your representation cited and to inform you that
your representation was examined in consultation with the Engineer-In-Chief (Admn.
Wing), I & CAD Department and it was found that the OMC has no reason to interfere in
the matter, since the Department has already conceded to your requests. If, however,
you have not received redressal, you may inform the Commission.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copy To:
1. Sri P. Ramesh, D.E.E., K.C. Canal (M.P), Sub-Divn.No.5, Allagadda, Kurnool Dist.
2. Sri M.V. Rama Rao, D.E.E., K.C. Canal (M.P), Constn., Circle-III,
Sub-Divn.No.2, Nandyal, Kurnool Dist.
3. Sr. Ch. Chandra Reddy, D.E.E., KCC (MP), Construction Circle-III,
Nandyal, Kurnool Dist.
4. Sri. K. Surya Prakash Rao, D.E.E., Construction Sub-Divn.No.7,
Circle-III, Nandyal – 518 501, Kurnool Dist.
5. Sri N. Bhaskar Rao, EE(FAC), KCC (MP), Constn., Divn.No.7,
Karivena, Atmakur (M), Kurnool Dist.
6. The Engineer-in-Chief (Admn. Wing), I & CAD Department, Errummanzil,
Hyderabad.
48
Lr.No.11/OMC/NZBD/4/B1/2001, Dt.10-03-2003
From:
Room No: 320,
IInd Floor, „K‟ Block,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To:
Sri A. Devanand,
President,
Democratic Teachers‟ Federation,
P.S. Kothapally,
Mandal – Velpoor – 503 307.
Nizamabad District.
Sir,
Sub: OMC-SPF-Violation of G.O.Ms.No.610-Reply – Reg.,
Ref: 1. Your representation dated NIL.

2. Your representation dated 2-8-2001.
3. From the DEO, Nizamabad, Lr.No.6392/A1/2001,
dt.13-12-2002.
* * *
With reference to your representation 1 st and 2nd cited, I am to inform you that
your representation on the violation of G.O.Ms.No.610 in the Nizamabad District has been
examined in detail and the data available since 1993 onwards did not show anything from
which one could infer that non-locals were recruited as Teachers in violation of Presidential
Order, in the Nizamabad District.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copy to: C.No.11/OMC/NZBD/5/2001

49
Lr.No.11/OMC/NZBD/8/B1/2001, Dt.10-03-2003
From:
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To:
Sri D. Vasudeva Rao,
President,
A.P. Primary Teacher‟s Association (APPTA),
Govt., Aided Geeta Convent School,
C/o. Dr. K.V.S. Rao,
Sri Sai Homeo Clinic,
Khaleelwadi
Nizamabad Dist.,
Sir,
Ref: 1. Your representation dated 2-8-2001.

2. From the DEO, Nizamabad, Lr.No.6392/A1/2001, dt.13-12-2002.
***
With reference to your representation 1st cited, I am to inform you that your
representation on the violation of G.O.Ms.No.610 in the Nizamabad District has been
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
50
Lr.No.11/OMC/NZBD/2/B1/2001, Dt.10-03-2003
From:
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To:
Sri Ch. Kishan,
President,
The A.P. United Teachers‟ Federation,
S.N.V. High School,
Nizamabad,
Nizamabad District.
Sir,
Ref: 1. Your representation Lr.No.72/2001, dated 2-8-2001.

2. From the DEO, Nizamabad, Lr.No.6392/A1/2001, dt.13-12-2002.
* * *
With reference to your representation 1st cited, I am to inform you that your
representation on the violation of G.O.Ms.No.610 in the Nizamabad District has been
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
51
PROCEEDINGS NO.06/15/OMC/A2/2001-5, Dated:20-03-2003
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Port Department – Representation of Sri U.

Sarveswara Rao and Sri K. Ramesh Babu Maistries Grade-II – Against their
transfers to Machilipatnam Port from Kakinada Port – Proceedings – Issued.
Ref: 1. From Sri U. Sarveswara Rao, Maistry Gr.II Krishna District, Machilipatnam
Port, Representation dated Nil.
2. From Sri K. Ramesh Babu, Maistry Grade.II (Tech)

Machilipatnam Port, Representation dated Nil.
3. OMC D.O.Lr.No.06/15/OMC(SPF)/2001-4, Dt.09-07-02.
4. From the Director of Ports, A.P Kakinada, copy of

Lr.No.2371/B.1/2002, Dt.15-07-2002.
* * *
Sri U. Sarveswara Rao, Maistry Grade-II, and Sri K. Ramesh Babu, Maistry Grade-
II, Machilipatnam Port, Krishna District have represented to OMC (SPF) stating that they
were appointed as Maistries Grade-II in Kakinada Port, East Godavari District vide Proc.
No. 706/B.1/98, Dt.02-05-1998. The Director of Ports, Kakinada transferred them to
Machilipatnam Port in to the existing vacancies, even though their posts belong to district
Cadre. Their juniors were retained in Kakinada port in their places; and, therefore,
requested the OMC to transfer them back to Kakinada port.
2. The Director of Ports, in his remarks reported that 13 posts of Maistries Grade-II
were directly recruited through the local Employment exchange of East Godavari District
while the Fishing Harbour was being built at Kakinada Port. Later on, after the completion
of the work, 5 posts of Maistries Grade-II were abolished and the remaining posts were
being utilized at the Kakinada port itself in the existing vacancies of the posts carrying the
same pay scale and grade like the Signellers, Morse Code Operators etc., with those
persons having that knowledge. However, the Director added that on humanitarian
grounds, to avoid their ousting, the rest of the personal were transferred to Machilipatnam
port into the existing vacancies of Mazdoors, on their own scale of pay.
3. The OMC heard the Petitioner Sri U. Sarveswara Rao and the P.A to the Director of
Ports in the hearing held on 16/07/2002 and observed that transfer of personnel working
in one district cadre posts to another district cadre without the Government permission
amounts to violation of Presidential Order. The transfers made in the instant case besides
being voilative of Presidential Order for the District Cadres of the East Godavari District
also deprive the Local candidates of Krishna District of their employment chances.
4. In view of the above, and in view of the circumstances reported by the Department
the Director of Ports is advised to take immediate approval of the Government to
regularize those transfers with retrospective effect as per the Instructions issued on the
Presidential Order from time to time, while obtaining due condonation and exemptions.
5. The Department is also advised to submit self explanatory proposals, for inclusion
of such posts which cannot be easily subjected to local cadres under GSR 529(E) to the
Government in T.R. & B Department for taking up with G.A (SPF) Department for obtaining
concurrence of Government of India as it would be better than the violation of Presidential
Order under the exigencies of the type of transfers mentioned by the Department as in the
instant case. The action taken in this regard may be intimated to this Commission at the
earliest.
J.M.GIRGLANI
To
The Director of Ports,
Kakinada,
TR & B (Ports) Department,
Copy to
The Petitioner,
OMC „B‟ Section (with a request to include in issues “Transfers to some persons from
retrenchment by Port Department”)
SF/SC.
// FORWARDED BY ORDER//
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
52
Proceedings No.6/15/OMC/A3/Ind.Dept./2001-5, Dt.20-3-2003.
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Representation of Sri G.Narasa Reddy, Industrial Promotion

Officer, for fixation of Seniority – Proceedings of the Commission – Issued.
Ref: 1. From Sri G.Narasa Reddy, Industrial Promotion Officer, District Industries
Centre, Balanagar R.R.Dist., Repn., dt.15-7-01.
2. OMC‟s Lr.No.6/15/OMC/A/2001-3, dt.09-07-2002 & 28-10-2002.
3. From Sri G.Narasa Reddy, Industrial Promotion Officer, District Industries
Centre, Balanagar, R.R. Dist., repn., Dt.19-12-2002.
* * *
Sri G.Narasa Reddy, Industrial Promotion Officer, District Industries Centre, R.R.
Dist., has submitted a representation to OMC, stating that he was appointed as Extension
Officer (Industries) (now Industrial Promotion Officer) on 5-1-1976 and was posted to
Adilabad District in zone V. His services were regularised in the category of Extension
Officer (Ind.) w.e.f. 05-01-1976, and his probation was declared vide Proc.No.A/1635/79,
dt.05-3-1981. As he belonged to Nizamabad District, he represented for his re-allotment
to zone VI, but his appeal was rejected vide G.O.Ms.No.355, dt.01-05-1978 of Industries
Department. Subsequently on his representation the Director of Industries granted him
transfer to zone VI on mutual basis vide his proceedings No.753/DSK 22-c2/83, dt.22-04-
1983 as per para 5 (2) (d) of the Presidential Order.
He has further submitted, that in the provisional seniority list of Extension Officer of
zone VI issued vide Memo 1133/DSK/22/c1/93, dt.5-8-93, he was assigned the seniority
at Sl.No.34 in zone VI and he has submitted further representation to the Commissioner of
Industries to fix his seniority in the cadre of Industrial Promotion Officer (Extension Officer,
(Industries) taking into account the date of his first appointment in zone V i.e., from 5-1-
1976, to enable him to get promotion as Asst. Director of Industries. But, the same was
rejected by the Commissioner of Industries. He made another representation to
government for fixing his seniority and the Government also rejected his representation.
Aggrieved by the above orders, he filed O.A.No.721/1995 in A.P.A.T. and the said
OA was disposed off on 6-7-1999 with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the
objections of the Applicant while finalising the seniority list in his cadre and after seniority
list is finalised, promotion of the applicant be reviewed. The Commissioner of Industries
examined the issue accordingly and rejected the claim of the Applicant for reviewing the
seniority in the cadre of Extension Officer (Industries) with reference to the date of his first
appointment in zone-V.
Sri Narasa Reddy again filed another O.A. No.7568/99 for restoration of his
seniority in the APAT and the OA was dismissed on the ground that “his request doesn‟t
merit consideration”.
Sri G.Narasa Reddy, Industrial Promotion Officer has now requested the OMC (SPF)
to restore his seniority from the date of his first appointment in zone V from 5-1-1976
instead of 26-5-1983 i.e., the date of his transfer to zone VI, on mutual transfer basis.
With reference to his Representation, Sri G.Narasa Reddy is informed that the
matter has already been considered and rejected by the Hon‟ble A.P. Administrative
Tribunal. Hence the OMC cannot entertain the petition on the same issue.
The petition is therefore rejected.
J.M. GIRGLANI
To
Sri G.Narasa Reddy,
Industrial Promotion Officer,
Dist. Industries Centre,
Balanagar, R.R. District.
Copy to
The Commissioner of Industries, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyd.
S.F. / S.C.
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
53
Proceedings No.11/OMC/A2/WRL-6/2001, dt.24-03-2003.
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Coop. Department Repn. of the Telangana Coop. N.G.O‟s
Association, Warangal Dist., Unit – Regarding excess allotment of Non-
Locals as Coop. Junior Inspectors during 1992-93 in Zone-V – Proceedings
of the Commission – Issued.
Ref: 1. Representation from the Telangana Coop. N.G.O.‟s Association, Warangal

District dt.31-7-2001.
2. From the Registrar of Coop. Societies, Hyderabad Lr.Rc.No.39275/00
E4, dt:20-11-2001.
3. From the A.P.P.S.C. Lr.No.654/RS.18/02, dt:07-05-2002.
* * *
The Telangana Coop.N.G.O‟s Association, Warangal District Unit has submitted a

representation to One Man Commission, stating that (42) Junior Inspectors of Coop.
Societies have been recruited directly in the year 1992-93 by the Andhra Pradesh Public
Service Commission and were allotted to Zone-V, of these, (12) Junior Inspectors were
allotted in excess in Zone-V, violating Six Point Formula and therefore requested the One
Man Commission to set right the anomaly by transferring the services of those non-local
employees to their respective zones.
The Registrar of Coop. Societies, Hyderabad in his remarks, stated that the
A.P.P.S.C., Hyderabad in the year 1993 allotted (42) candidates for the post of Junior
Inspectors in Zone-V and that the said candidates were appointed and deputed for training
for one year and on completion of training, they were allotted to zone-V for regular
postings. The details of the allotment in zone-V by the A.P.P.S.C., are as follows:-
No. of Out of which Local Non-Local Percentage

Candidates candidates candidates candidates of Non-
allotted to the joined in Coop. who joined in who joined in Locals
Coop. Dept., in Dept., the Dept., the Dept. joined
1993
42 41 29 12 28.57%
The Registrar of Coop. Societies concluded that the contention of the Association in
the matter is not correct, because as per para 8(2) (a) of A.P. Public Employment
(Organisation of local cadres and Regulation of Direct recruitment) Order, 1975, which
pertains to N.G.O. posts other than the L.D.C. Posts, 70% of posts are to be filled by direct
recruitment with local candidates. As per allotment made by the APPSC (12) candidates
were allotted under non-local and the percentage worked out to 28.57%. Hence, there is
no excess allotment of non-locals in Zone-V in the cadre of Junior Inspectors by the
A.P.P.S.C., as contended by the Association. The stand taken by the Registrar of Coop.
Societies, with reference to the 30% vacancies was not, however, found correct by the
One Man Commission.
Hence, the One Man Commission consulted the Secretary, A.P.P.S.C., and the
Secretary, APPSC., reported, that the Commission always observed, in all its selections,
the various provisions contained in Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation local
cadres and regulation of direct recruitment) order 1975, and that in this case also, the
percentage reserved for locals (viz., 70% in this case) was strictly adhered to. The rest of
the 30% of vacancies, which were not reserved, were filled in by candidates strictly based
on the merit regardless of local, non-local status as contemplated in the Presidential
Order, as 28.57% non-locals are within this 30% of merit list.
Under the circumstances reported supra, the Commission sees no violation of

Presidential Order in the allotment of candidates to the post of Coop. Junior Inspectors in
Zone-V during the year 1992 – 93.
J.M. GIRGLANI,
To
The Telangana Coop.,
NGO‟s Association,
Warangal Dist., Unit,
The CC & RCS.,

The A.P.P.S.C.,
SF/SC
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
54
Proc. No.11/OMC/ANTP/B1/2001, dt.24–03-2003
Sub: OMC – SPF – Services Welfare – Mohd. Shoukat Hussain, Deputy Tahasildar
(CS), Ananthapur District – Request for posting to Hyderabad – Reg.,
Ref: 1. Representation of Mohd. Shoukat Hussain, DeputyTahasildar (CS),

Ananthapur District, dt.31-8-01.
2. From the Commissioner of Civil Supplies Lr.CCS Ref.
No.Admn.I(1)/720/2001, dt.01/08/2002 and 02/09/2002.
* * *
Mohd. Shoukat Hussain in his representation 1 st cited, represented to the One Man
Commission for his posting to Hyderabad City since he belonged to the City Cadre having
been appointed in a State Level Institution – the Office of the Chief Rationing Office,
Hyderabad. The One Man Commission examined the issue in consultation with the
Commissioner of Civil Supplies.
2. The Chief Rationing Office, Hyderabad was notified by the Central Govt. Vide GSR
526(E), dt.18/10/75 as “Special Office or Establishment” under Presidential Order 1975
and kept outside the purview of the Presidential Order.
3. The Commissioner has reported that the transfer was affected to Ananthapur on
purely administrative grounds in view of certain corruption charges against the Petitioner
on 04/04/2000, based on the report of concerned authorities, as the Presidential Order is
not applicable to Deputy Tahasildar posts in the Civil Supplies Department since most of
them are taken on deputation from Revenue Department state wide seniority is being
maintained and hence concluded that there was no violation of Presidential Order in the
transfer of the Petitioner to Ananthapur District.
4. The matter has been examined by the One Man Commission. Para 10(b) of GO.P
No.728, GA(SPF-A) Department, dt.01-11-75 lays down that for the transfer of a person
from a Local Cadre comprising posts in any Office or establishment exercising territorial
jurisdiction over a part of the State or any other Local Cadre comprising posts in such part
or “vice versa” a provision in the Service Rules is to be made. In the absence of such a
provision such transfer amounts to the Violation of Presidential Order.
5. The transfer in the instant case would have been valid had Rules of the Department
provided for it. The Commissioner is therefore advised to make a provision for such
transfers in the Rules to meet contingencies like this. Since this transfer is reported to be
on account of serious charges levelled against the Petitioner, the obvious course of action
is suspension. Transfer is not a substitute for suspension particularly if it is to be effected
in contravention of the Presidential Order.
6. Commissioner is advised to transfer the petitioner back to the City Rationing Office
and consider the obviously proper course of action, viz., suspension, if he is so advised.
7. The Petition is disposed off accordingly.
Sd/-
To
The Commissioner,
Civil Supplies, “Civil Supplies Bhavan”,
Somajiguda,
Hyderabad – 082
Copy to
Mohd. Shoukat Hussain, Dy. Tahasildar (CS),
H.No.20-7-242/3/B, Danikabagh, Quazipura,
Hyderabad – 065.
2. The FCS & CA Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad for taking necessary action.
3. B2 (W.es) for taking necessary action.

55
Lr.No.11/OMC/MBNR/3/B1/01, Dt.08–04-2003
From:
J.M. Girglani IAS, (Retd.,)
K-Block, A.P. Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Shaik Abdul Salam,
H.No.17-5-718,
P.O. Yakuthpura,
Kali Masjid,
Hyderabad – 500 023.
Sir,
Sub: OMC – SPF- D.E &T – Establishment – Allotment of zone-VII under SPF –
Regarding.
Ref: 1. Your Repn. Dt.23-07-2002.

2. From the Director of Employment & Training Lr.No.
G3/6734/2002, Dt.21-11-2002.
*****
With reference to your representation cited, I am directed to inform you that your
request has been examined in consultation with the Director of Employment & Training.
Due to the non-availability of vacancies of Jr. Assistants in Karimnagar District the Director
of Employment & Training appointed your eldest son as Jr. Assistant in the District
Employment Exchange, Mahaboobnagar in zone-VI and no local cadre principle is involved
in the matter.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
for One Man Commission (SPF).
Copy to: The Director of Employment & Training, 3rd Floor,

BRKR Bhavan, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad for information.
Copy to: B2 with a request to include in the report and made a general
reference.

Lr.No.11/OMC/B.1/MBNR/2003, Dt. 31/07/2003.
From
J.M. Girglani, IAS (Retd.)
One Man Commission,
„K‟ Block, Room No.320, 2nd Floor,
A.P. Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
The Prl. Secretary to Govt.,
LET & F Department,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad (w.es)
Sir,
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Request of Shaik Abdul Subhan, Jr. Asst., Dist. Employment
Exchange, Mahaboobnagar for Allotment to his native District – Reg.
Ref: 1. Representation from Shaik Abdul Subhan, Jr. Asst., Dist. Employment
Exchange, Mahaboobnagar dated 23/07/2002.
2. From the Director of Employment and Training Lr.No.G3/6734/2002, Dt.
21/11/2002.
3. OMC Lr.No.11/OMC/MBNR/B1/01, Dt. 08/04/2003.
* * *
Shaik Abdul Subhan, Jr. Asst., District Employment Exchange, Mahaboobnagar

represented to the One Man Commission that inspite of clear proof of his being a local
candidate of Hyderabad City and even though there were clear vacancies in existence in
twin cities at the time of his appointment, on Compassionate grounds, he was allotted to
Mahaboobnagar District. Sri Subhan therefore, requested for allotment to Hyderabad
District and to post him in any of the I.T.Is or Employment Exchanges against the existing
clear vacancies of Jr. Assistants.
Many a representation by the Employees Unions / Associations have been received

by this Commission regarding the “non-locals” being appointed, in various Districts, on
compassionate grounds – normally taking into consideration the placement of the
deceased employees at the time of his death.
In this regard I have already submitted my views to the Government that while
making “compassionate appointments” the Departments shall follow Para 6 of the
Presidential Order (G.O.Ms.No.674, GA(SPF.A) Dept. dated 20/10/1975) since the

“compassionate appointment” is also an appointment like direct recruitment to a post.
Therefore the request of Sri Shaik Abdul Subhan may be considered to

accommodate him in a vacancy in the local cadre of Hyderabad District which he belongs
after verifying his local status with reference to relevant educational certificates etc.
This Commissions letter, 3rd cited, issued earlier be treated as cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copy to :
The Director of Employment & Training, 3rd Floor, BRKR Bhavan, Tankbund
Road, Hyderabad for taking necessary action.
Shaik Abdul Subhan, S/o Shaik Abdul Salam,

H.No. 17-5-718, P.O: Yakutpura, Kali Masjid, Hyderabad, 500 023.
56
Lr.No.11/OMC(B1)/01/LET & F/2003, Dt.01-05-2003.
From:
P.Mohan Lal,
Ex-officio Jt. Secretary & Officer on Spl. Duty,
(One Man Commission)
K-Block, IInd Floor,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Khaja Azeemuddin,
Attender,
H.No.8-1-351/37,
Rahul Colony,
Toli Chowki,
Hyderabad.
Sir,
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Request transfer of Khaja Azeemuddin, Attender, Govt., I.T.I.
for Girls, Anantapur to Govt., I.T.I., Medak Dist., Sangareddy or Patancheur
– Reg.,
Ref: Your representation dt.24-04-2003.
*****
With reference to your representation cited, I am directed to inform you that your
request has been examined by this Commission and it was found that it does not come
under the purview of the One Man Commission, as it relates to a request for transfer from
a zone to another zone.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Ex-officio Jt. Secretary
& Officer on Spl. Duty,
(One Man Commission)

Lr.No.11/OMC(B1)/01/LET & F/03, Dt.14-05-2003.
From
Room No: 320,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To,
The Principal Secretary to Govt.,
L.E.T. & F Department,
Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
Sir,
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Request transfer of Sri Khaja Azeemuddin, Attender, Govt.
I.T.I., for Girls, Anantapur to Govt. I.T.I., Sangareddy / Patancheru – Reg.
*****
Sri Khaja Azeemuddin, Attender, Govt. I.T.I., for Girls, Anantapur represented to
the One Man Commission that he belongs to Medak District and got appointed on
compassionate grounds in Anantapur District, due to the demise of his father while
working at Anantapur, and hence requested for a transfer to his native District, Medak
(copy enclosed).
Many a representation by the Employees Unions / Associations have been received

by this Commission regarding the “non-locals” being appointed, in various Districts, on
compassionate grounds -- normally taking into consideration the placement of the
deceased employee at the time of his death.
In this regard the Commission has already taken the view that compassionate
appointments should follow the rules of local cadre like all other direct recruitments.
Therefore, Petitioner may be transferred to a vacancy to his local cadre after

verifying his local status with reference to the relevant certificates.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(J.M. GIRGLANI)
Copy to: Khaja Azeemuddin, Attender, H.No.8-1-351/37, Rahul

Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad for information.
57
Proceedings No.06/83/OMC/B1/01, Dt.02-05-2003
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Representation of Sri K.Lakshma Reddy, Gr.I, PD regarding the
Irregular transfer and promotion of Sri K. Raja Sekhar, Assistant Physical
Director, Govt., Degree College, Anantapur (zone-IV) to Nalgonda (zone-VI)
– Regarding.
Ref: 1. Representations from Sri K. Laxma Reddy, Gr.I P.D, Govt., College of
Physical Education, Domalguda, Hyderabad, Dt. 09-01-2002, 14-10-02
and 25.04.2003.
2. From the Director of Collegiate Education, Letters Rc.No. 1340/Admn.II-

2/2001, Dt.14-02-03 and 28-03-03.
***
Sri K. Laxma Reddy, Physical Director, Government College of Physical Education,

Hyderabad represented to this Commission regarding the irregular transfer and promotion
of one Sri K.Rajasekhar, Assistant Physical Director from Zone-IV to Zone-VI Nalgonda
District. Sri K.Rajasekhar is presently working as Physical Director in the Government
Degree College, Armoor of Nizamabad District.
Sri K.Rajasekhar, Assistant Physical Director, Government Degree College,
Anantapur had been appointed as a direct recruit through APPSC as Assistant Physical
Director and was posted to Government Degree College, Anantapur (Zone-IV) on
16.09.1983, in the open quota. As a local of Zone-VI (Nalgonda), he had been
representing to the Government for his transfer to Zone-VI as his wife was working as a
Teacher there, as a “spouse” case. There were no posts of Assistant Physical Directors
of Degree Colleges in Zone-VI. However, the Government in its Memo. No.1557/HE.II/86-
5 Edn. Dept., dt:16.05.1987 issued orders transferring Sri K.Rajasekhar, Assistant Physical
Director from Zone-IV to Zone-VI in the post of Physical Director in the Government Junior
College, Halia, Nalgonda District into the existing vacancy, on his own scale of pay, with
the stipulation that he should take last rank in the category of Physical Directors working
in Government Junior Colleges in Zone-VI, citing the observations of the One Man
Commission (1986) which had stated that the request for transfer should be complied with
as and when the post of Assistant Physical Director is sanctioned in Zone-VI or in the
alternative, the Department may consider the possibility of transferring him from the
present post to an equivalent post in the Physical Education Branch in one of the Junior
Colleges in Zone-VI provided such a case is feasible and that Sri K. Rajasekhar may be
“adjusted” in Zone-VI as and when a post of Assistant Physical Director is created in Zone-
VI. But till now no post of Assistant Physical Director has been created in Zone-VI.
In the proceedings Rc.No.2542/UGC-3/91, Dt.18-6-1993 Commissioner of
Collegiate Education promoted Sri K. Rajasekhar as Physical Director of a Government
Degree College when that vacancy arose in Zone-VI treating him as an Assistant Physical
Director of a Degree College, the post that he had relinquished on transfer, a post that did
not exist in Zone VI. He had no lien to that post in Zone IV and was in the post of Physical
Director of Government Junior College in Zone-VI in the seniority list far below the
Petitioner. Sri K. Rajashekhar was picked up and given promotion wrongly and irregularly
on a wrong premise. Not only that, on this baseless premise, he was placed above all the
persons in the seniority list of Physical Directors of Junior Colleges of Zone VI, reversing
the Government Order in Memo No.1557/HE-2/86-5, Education (HE) Department dt.16-
05-1987 in which Sri K. Rajashekhar was transferred and placed at the bottom of this list.
The Commissioner of Collegiate Education has gone far beyond his competence on a wrong
premise and reversed orders of the Government. Had that gross irregular order not been
passed by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education the promotion from Zone – VI would
have gone to a person from the list of Physical Directors of Junior Colleges who were
working in the Zone-VI. In that list Sri K.Rajasekhar stood in the last rank. This deprived
the first person in the seniority list, at that time viz., the Petitioner Sri K.Lakshma Reddy,
of his due promotion to the post to which Sri K. Rajashekhar was irregularly and wrongly
promoted.
The Director of Collegiate Education, who had been requested for remarks, stated
that no irregularity was committed in giving promotion to Sri K.Rajasekhar quoting the
Government Orders in G.O.Rt.No.1996, Education (CE.I) Dept., dt:31.12.1990 wherein the
Government have issued orders for recruitment to the post of Physical Director in
Government Degree Colleges from the posts of Physical Directors of Junior Colleges and
High Schools, only after exhausting the Assistant Physical Directors of Degree Colleges.
The G.O. does not justify the promotion but brings out the irregularity since Sri K.
Rajasekhar was not holding the post of Assistant Physical Director of Degree College or a
lien on such a post.
In G.O.Ms.No.1196 Education (B) Dept., dt:27.12.1977 the rules provide for the
promotion of Physical Directors of Degree Colleges from the category of Assistant Physical
Directors of Degree Colleges and in case if no suitable and qualified candidate is available
in that cadre, from the category of Physical Directors of Junior Colleges and High Schools.
As per these Rules the promotion to Sri K. Rajasekhar was irregular and wrong. It was
due only to the senior most Physical Director of Junior College, viz., the Petitioner.
Hearing was held on 25.04.2003 with Department of Collegiate Education /
Secretariat Department and both the parties.
G.O.Ms.No.136 Education Department, dt: 06.04.1995 which Sri K.Rajasekhar has
quoted in his favour does not pertain to this case since the G.O. was issued in 1995 with
prospective effect only and he got promotion prior to that date on 18.06.1993. Its
retrospective effect does not change anything.
As already stated above, Sri K. Rajasekhar had no lien on the post of Assistant
Physical Director of Degree College in Zone–IV after his transfer to Zone-VI. Lien is the
inherent part of only a deputation not of a transfer.
As Sri K. Rajasekhar is far below in seniority in the list of Physical Directors of
Junior Colleges in Zone-VI, the only category to which he belongs, his promotion has been
irregular and invalid.
Hence, the Commission holds that the date on which Sri K.Rajasekhar was
promoted, the Petitioner Sri K. Lakshama Reddy has a right to be promoted. Government
is requested to take action accordingly and give the Petitioner promotion accordingly with
all the consequential benefits in terms of seniority in the promoted category, monetary
benefits etc. Sri K. Rajasekhar, should revert to his original position in the seniority list
of Physical Directors of Junior Colleges in Zone-VI. However, it is left to the
Government to take a compassionate view as he has actually discharged duties of the
higher post and create supernumerary post for him in which he can continue till his turn
comes for regular promotion as per seniority in the category of Physical Directors of Junior
Colleges in Zone-VI.
(J.M. GIRGLANI)
ONE MAN COMMISSION (SPF).
To
1. The Prl. Secretary to Government,
Education (Higher Education) Department,
2. The Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad.
3. The Director of Collegiate Education, Near Lata Talkies, Nampally, Hyderabad.
Copy to: 1. Sri K.Lakshama Reddy, Physical Director, Govt., College of
Physical Education, Domalguda, Hyderabad – 500 029.
2. Sri K.Rajasekhar, Physical Directo, Govt., Degree College
Armoor, Nizamabad District.
// Forwarded by Order // Sd/-

SECTION OFFICER
58
Proceedings No.11/OMC/I&CAD/A1/2001, Dt.21-05-2003
Sub: OMC (SPF) – “Transfer through OD device – Representation from Telangana

Rastra Samithi against Sri N.V Ramana Raju, Senior Assistant/now
Suprintendent.
Ref: 1. Representation from Telangana Rastra Samithi dt nil (addressed to the

Secretary G.A (Ser) Department under copy marked to One Man
Commission)
2. Lr.No.Rc/ENC/D3/20427/2001, dt.25-01-2002 of E.N.C (Admin. Wing) I &
CAD Department.
3. Lr.No.Rc/ENC/D3/20427/2001, dt 27-07-2002.
4. Representation from Sri S.J. Lakshma Reddy, Superintendent P.J.P Circle,
Gadwal, dt.22-07-2002.
5. E.N.C (Admin. Wing) I & CAD Department
LR.No.Rc/ENC/D3/20427/2001, dt 29-08-2002.
6. ENC (Admin. Wing) I & CAD Department Lr.No.Rc/ENC/ D3/20427 /01, dt
10-10-2002.
7. Lr.No.OMC/11/I & CAD /A1/2001, dt 04-01-2003
8. ENC (Admin. Wing) I & CAD Department, Lr.No.Rc/ENC/D3/1402/2003, dt
29-01-2003.
*****
The President, Telangana Rastra Samithi in his petition 1 st read above has stated
that as per G.O.610, dt.30.12.1985 other than zone VI people should not be transferred to
the vacancies in zone VI. The Division No.4, Special Designs Circle, Hyderabad belongs to
zone VI. Sri N.V Ramana Raju, who was appointed under displaced quota in zone III
(Nellore Dist.,) during 1985, was transferred as Office Superintendent to zone VI within 10
years of his service. He was appointed as Maistry in work charged Establishment and has
also got promotion illegally against zone VI vacancy, when there are clear cut orders by
the Government for rectification of violations in zone V and VI under SPF, and hence,
requested to cancel the allegedly illegal orders issued to Sri N.V. Ramana Raju,
Superintendent, O/o Superintendent Engineer, Special Designs Circle, Hyderabad and also
to repatriate him to his native zone III and provide an opportunity to Telangana
Employees for promotion as Superintendent.
The Engineer-in-Chief (Admin. Wing) I & CAD Department among other things has
stated that Sri N.V.Ramana Raju, was appointed as Junior Assistant by the S.E., T.G.P
circle, Cuddapah vide Proc. No.270/M, dt 24.02.1989 and he reported for duty on
25.02.1989 (F.N). Later he was promoted as Senior Assistant on ad hoc basis and posted
to T.G.P Circle, Cuddapah, vide Proc.No.3/ECO/272M, dt 23.03.1991. The individual was

transferred and posted to H.N.S.S Circle, Cuddapah from TGP circle Cuddapah on OD basis
and he reported for duty on 30.08.1991. Subsequently he was promoted as
Superintendent and reported for duty on 01.10.1993 (F.N) but subsequently reverted as
Senior Assistant for want of vacancy and posted to H.N.S.S Circle, Madanapalle vide Proc.
No. Camp.No.E, dt 23.12.1994. Later he reported as Superintendent in GNSS Circle
Cuddapah on 13.01.1996 as per A.P.A.T orders in OA No.7331/94. The individual was
transferred and posted to Special Designs Circle, Hyderabad on “OD basis” vide Proc
No.AB/SE/EC2/E14/387M, dt 12.07.1997 against the existing vacancy of Designs Division
No.4 and that his pay and allowances are being claimed in Designs Division No.4 since he
was posted against the existing vacancy. The individual is working only on OD basis and
his seniority is maintained in parent circle. The Superintendent Engineer vide his
proceedings No.AB/SDC/ED2/515M, dt 29/07/2002, issued orders repatriating Sri
N.V.Ramana Raju to his parent circle. But it is learnt that he has been on leave and has
not joined in his parent circle.
The Commission has examined the case carefully and observes that OD is neither a
transfer nor a deputation. It gives no locus standi. It is only a device for an ad hoc short
term agreement, for a functional exigency. It should not affect a person‟s service and
position in any respect. OD only authorized a person to work in a post for a short specific
period and purpose. His services belong to his original post. He has no right to seniority
or promotion in a post where he works on OD. OD cannot be used as a camouflage for
transfer. His promotion in the post where he is on ID is invalid. Hence, the said Sri
N.V.Ramana Raju, should be sent back to his post in zone IV. In fact it is not a case of
OD as such but a transfer camouflaged under the name of OD. This is evident from the
fact that his pay and allowances are drawn in the post to which he is transferred, not in his
original post. This is in clear contravention of the Presidential Order as well as State &
Sub-Ordinate Service Rules.
The Commission holds that this individual and all the employees brought on “OD”
device are brought to circumvent Presidential Order and should be sent back to their
respective posts and the consequential vacancies should be filled in as per rules with local
candidates with retrospective benefits to those deprived of promotion due to OD
candidates occupying their promotional posts. They should be given retrospective
seniority and monetary benefits etc., The persons on OD should go back to their original
posts in their respective original seniorities in that post. The Commission also holds that
no recovery need be made from them for the period of their irregularly holding a higher
post on OD and the post may be treated as supernumerary in their original circle, to
regularize the undue payment in higher post if he was not due for promotion in the original
post. This will apply in all cases of such OD “transfers” which are held to be a device for
circumvention of the Presidential Order. The ENC (Admin. Wing) is requested to submit
particulars of such cases and compliance report to Government under intimation to this
Commission.
J.M.GIRGLANI
ONE MAN COMMISSIN (SPF)
To
1. The Prl. Secy. to Government, I & CAD Department.
2. Secy. to Government GA (SPF) Department
3. Engineer-in-Chief (AW), Hyderabad.
4. The President TRS, Hyderabad for information.
Copy to:
Sri S.J. Lakshma Reddy,
Superintendent P.J.R Circle,
Gadwal.
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
59
Lr.No.11/OMC/WRL-16/2001, Dt.30–05-2003
From:
J.M.Girglani, IAS.(Retd.,)
K-Block, 2nd Floor, Room No: 320,
A.P., Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
The Hony. President,
A.P.S.C. Welfare Association,
Warangal,
H.No.2-6-1153,
St. Petor Colony,
Hanmakonda – 506 001.
Sir,
Sub : OMC (SPF) – Violation of SPF – Appointment in Revenue Establishment of

Warangal District – Regarding.
Ref: 1) Representation from A.P.S.C. Welfare Association, Warangal Dist. Dt.31-

07-2001.
2) From the Collector Warangal Lr.No.B1/6964/2001,
Dt.24-04-2003.
***
With reference to your representation cited it is to inform you that the matter has
been examined by this Commission in consultation with the Collector, Warangal and it was
found that they were appointed in the District, as follows:-
a) 11 of them have been appointed through APPSC as Village Assistants in 1984 under
non-local quota.
b) 2 of them have been appointed as Typists – under non-local quota in DSC 1987.
c) 2 of them were appointed as Dy. Tahsildars by APPSC and ware allotted.
d) 1 of them was appointed on Compassionate grounds.
e) 1 was a Dy. Tahasildar on transfer in the Civil Supplies Department.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
60
Proceedings No.06/49/OMC/B1/2001, Dt. 09–06-2003.
Sub: OMC (SPF)–Representations of Sri M. Satyanarayana Reddy, P.D. Gr.II, Sri B.

Seetha Ram Reddy, P.D. Gr.II, and Sri N.J.Diwakar, P.D. Gr.I Vs. Sri K.
Sanjeeva Rao, presently Inspector of Physical Education, Hyderabad.
Ref: 1. Representation from Sri M. Satyanarayana Reddy, Dated 9-8-01 and

27-12-2002.
2. Representation from Sri B. Seetha Ram Reddy, dt.9-8- 01 and
27-12-02.
3. Representation from Sri N.J. Diwakar, dt.22-1-2003.
4. From Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao, dt.3-01-2003, addressed to Prl. Secretary to
Government, Education Department and copy marked to One Man
Commission (SPF).
5. Interim Orders of Hon‟ble A.P.A.T. in OA No.754/03 dated 04-02-2003
and 30-03-2003.
*****
The case pertains to the petitions received from the following:
1. Sri M. Satyanarayana Reddy, presently Lecturer in Physical Education, Govt.
Comprehensive College, Masab Tank;
2. Sri B. Seetha Ram Reddy, presently Physical Director, Grade-II, Govt. Junior
College, Kachiguda; and
3. Sri N. J. Diwakar, presently Lecturer, Govt. College of Physical Education,

Hyderabad.
They have all represented that injustice was done to them by giving wrongful and
undue promotion to Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao, their colleague in the City Cadre (presently
Inspector of Physical Education, Hyderabad) as Physical Director Grade II, Teachers
Training Institute (TTI) Neredmet with effect from 17/11/1978. They claim promotions on
par with him. Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao is the Respondent in all the three Petitions submitted
by the aforesaid Petitioners.
Sri M. Satyanarayana Reddy (the 1st Petitioner herein) was appointed as Physical
Education Teacher (PET) in Govt. Junior College, Aliya, in the “City of Hyderabad” on
28/09/1970 and Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao (the Respondent) was appointed as Physical
Education Teacher in Sultan Shahi High School in the “City of Hyderabad” on 03/10/1970.
Both acquired necessary qualification of a Degree in Physical Education (B.P.Ed.,) on
04/04/1977 and became eligible for promotion to the post of Physical Director (PD) Grade
II.
Sri B. Seetha Ram Reddy (2nd Petitioner herein) was appointed as Physical
Education Teacher on 15.12.1971 in the Government Junior College, Kacheguda in the
“City of Hyderabad”. He acquired his B.P.Ed qualification on the same date viz., on
04.04.1977 as did Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao (Respondent). The Petitioner also submitted that
as per the vacancy position given by the Director of School Education, during the years
1975 to 1990, 11 Physical Director Grade II posts were vacant in the City Cadre.
All the above three persons were first appointed in the City Cadre as per
G.S.R.528(E) issued under para 3(6) of the Presidential Order, vide entry No.7 in the GSR,
as Physical Education Teachers (PETs).
Sri N.J. Diwakar (3rd Petitioner herein) was appointed as a Secondary Grade
Teacher in Sanga Reddy in Medak District Cadre (in Zone VI) on 17.07.1970. On
acquiring necessary qualifications (D.P.Ed. & B.P.Ed.,) he got himself converted as Physical
Education Teacher (PET) with effect from 16.08.1978 within Medak District (Zone-VI).
His petition will be discussed at the end as the position regarding the promotion of Sri K.
Sanjeeva Rao has first to be clearly discussed and defined.
The Respondent Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao who was working as Physical Education
Teacher in Government High School, Sultan Shahi in the “City of Hyderabad” in the City
Cadre, was transferred, on request, in Govt. Memo No.1370/B2/78-4, dt. 09/08/1978 in
the same post to the LRM Govt. High School, Bolaram (in Machabolaram Panchayat area)
which comes under the “City of Hyderabad”, and joined there on 31/08/1978. Thus this
post is also in the City Cadre. Subsequently, in Joint Director of School Education,
Hyderabad Proceedings Rc.No.64/V-1/75, dt.17/11/1978 Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao
(Respondent) was promoted as Physical Director Grade II on 17/11/1978 and was posted
to Teachers Training Institute, Neredmet (in Malkajgiri Panchayat area in the “City of
Hyderabad” in the City Cadre), on the wrong premise that Bolaram was in Zone VI and
also Neredmet was in Zone VI. In fact both were and continue to be in the City of
Hyderabad and hence in City Cadre as per First Schedule under Para 2(1) (a) of
Presidential Order. He was wrongly treated as belonging to Zone VI and got this wrongful
advantage on a dual wrong premise that Bolaram and Neredmet were in Zone VI when
they were actually in City of Hyderabad (City Cadre).
The Commission heard the Petitioners and the Respondent and the Officials of the
Department on 22-1-2003.
It is found that the whole case is based on a grossly and patently wrong notion held
by the Department that Bolaram of Machabolaram Panchayat area to which place Sri K.
Sanjeeva Rao was transferred, was in Zone – VI, whereas it was and is actually in the
“City of Hyderabad” under para 2 (1) (a) of the Presidential Order, First Schedule and was
therefore the posts therein were and are in the City Cadre. On this wrong premise he was
promoted to the higher post of Physical Director Gr.II. Again there was another wrong
premise that was applied in his favour, viz., that Naredmet of Malkajgiri Panchayat area
was in Zone VI whereas actually it was and is in “City of Hyderabad” as per First Schedule
and hence the posts therein were and are in City Cadre. (See entries (g) & (i) in First
Schedule to Presidential Order).
THE FIRST SCHEDULE
(See paragraph 2 (1) (a) City of Hyderabad)

(a) Hyderabad Municipal Corporation area:-
(i) Hyderabad Division.
(ii) Secunderabad Division.
(b) Secunderabad Cantonment area.
(c) Osmania University Campus.
(d) Zamistanpur Village.
(e) Fathenagar … Panchayat area.
(f) Bowenpalle … Panchayat area.
(g) Machabolaram … Panchayat area.
(h) Lalaguda Village … Village.
(i) Malkajgiri … Panchayat area.
(j) Uppal Khalsa … Panchayat area.
(k) Alwal … Panchayat area.
(l) Balanagar … Panchayat area.
(m) Musapet … Panchayat area.
(n) Kukatpalli … Panchayat area.
As per paragraph 3 (6) of the Presidential Order, at Sl. No. 7 of the GSR No. 528(E)
dated 18/10/1975 “All Non-Gazetted categories and the specified gazetted categories
other than Deputy Secretary (Education), Zilla Parishad” of the Education Department are
notified as categories of posts for which separate Cadres have to be organized for the City
of Hyderabad.
Thus the promotion of Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao (Respondent) who belonged to City
Cadre being treated as a candidate of Zone VI, to a post actually of City Cadre but
wrongly conceived to be in Zone VI, was „ab intio‟ void.
After his „ab intio‟ void promotion, Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao (Respondent) has got
further promotions as PD Grade-I, Gazetted Lecturer in Physical Education and Inspector
of Physical Education. Since the first promotion itself is „ab intio‟ void, all the subsequent
promotions are also „ab intio‟ void.
In this view of the case, the Commission holds that Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao should be
reverted to his original post as Physical Education Teacher (PET) with effect from 17 th
November 1978, the date of his first „ab intio‟ void promotion as PD, Grade-II. The
authorities may thereafter consider him in his original seniority as Physical Education
Teacher (PET) in the City Cadre from that date and work out his promotion as PD, Grade-II
according to the inter-se seniority of his other colleagues in the City Cadre. Thereafter
from that position if there are any promotions due to him these may be considered on that
basis only on the dates on which these may fall due. Meanwhile, he may be relieved of his
presently held illegal post and kept on compulsory wait till his legitimate position as per
this order is worked out.
In this context, therefore, the question of Sri M.Satyanarayana Reddy and Sri
B.Seetha Ram Reddy, in the City Cadre getting promotions because Sri K.Sanjeeva Rao
got promotion, that was actually „ab initio‟ void, does not arise as Mr.K. Sanjeeva Rao
himself has to be reverted back to his original position to status quo ante as of 17-11-
1978, the date of his „ab initio‟ void first promotion.
As far as the period for which the Respondent has enjoyed the „ab initio‟ void
promotions as Physical Director Grade-II and subsequent promotions, the government
may either recover the amount from him or in a compassionate view of things create a
supernumerary post for that period for which he held the posts illegally till the date of
relief from this post and allow him to keep the amounts, while reverting him to his original
position as Physical Education Teacher as of 17-11-1978.
Since it is a very patent case of wrongful action operating consistently in favour of

a single individual, government may consider whether they would like to hold an enquiry
to fix responsibility or allow the matter to rest there, after rectifying the wrong as held by
the Commission hereinabove.
This wrong premise about the cadre to which the posts in the School Education
Department in Bolaram and Neredmet belong, has also crept into the
Govt.Memo.No.45079/Ser.II.2/97-21, dt.18-11-2001 issued by Education (Services-II)
Department. In this Memo. also the Department treated Bolaram as part of Zone VI,
whereas actually it is a part of “City of Hyderabad” and the posts therein are part of the
City Cadre. Again the Memo. speaks of “Zone-VII” which does not exist in the Presidential
Order, perhaps intending to refer to the City Cadre. However, inspite of these errors, the
Government Memo. recognizes that the promotion of Sri K.Sanjeeva Rao was invalid and
has ordered the Commissioner of School Education to review the promotion of Sri
K.Sanjeeva Rao. Unfortunately, again, the misconception has entered into this Memo. and
it says that the promotion should be reviewed in his “Zone of appointment i.e., Zone-VI”,
which is a gross error because his Zone of appointment has been the City Cadre and he
has never gone out of the City Cadre.
In G.O.Ms.No.1085, Education Department, dt.9.9.1981, the Government have

ordered the transfer of 54 schools mentioned in the Annexure to the Order which are
located in K.V.Ranga Reddy District including the Cantonment Schools from the control of
District Education Officer, K,V. Ranga Reddy, Secunderabad to the control of District
Education Officer, Hyderabad (Urban), consequent on the orders in G.O.Ms.No.1391,
Revenue-U Department, dt.11.8.1978 declaring the Cantonment area in Secunderabad as
part of Hyderabad District (Urban). This Government Order only changes the controlling
authority in the administrative arrangement with regard to supervision of schools and has
nothing to do with the position of various villages and areas mentioned in the Annexure to
the Government Order. Bolaram was and continue to be in Machabolaram Panchayat area
and Naredmet was and continue to be in Malkajgiri Panchayat area before this G.O. and
after this G.O. Both these Panchayat areas were originally and continue to be in the First
Schedule to the Presidential Order under para 2 (1) (a). Thus all the Institutions of
Education Department therein were and continue to be in the City Cadre in terms of GSR
528(E) issued under para 3(6) of the Presidential Order. Hence this G.O. is irrelevant with
regard to this case, and the position of these Institutions under the Presidential Order. In
fact Government cannot change any place from one Cadre to another in the Presidential
Order.
Sri N.J. Diwakar (3rd Petitioner herein) has claimed seniority in the post of Physical
Director Grade II (first promotion post) over Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao in Zone VI. In the light
of the findings hereinabove, Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao (Respondent) has no locus standi in
Zone VI and his promotion was „ab initio‟ void. Hence the plea of Sri N.J. Diwakar has no
relevance.
Sri B. Seetha Ram Reddy (2nd Petitioner herein) approached Higher Education
Department and sought promotion, as the posts of Physical Director Grade II were not
being filled by the Director of School Education. But his efforts proved in vain since
vacancies of Physical Director Grade II were filled by the Director of Higher Education
transferring certain persons from other Zones. It is seen from the papers presented
before the Commission that Secretary, School Education Department in his Memo.
No.45079/Ser.2/97-8, Dt.14/07/2000, objected to this inter-local cadre transfer as it is
only the power of the Government through C.S. and C.M. He asked Secretary, Higher
Education to take action to cancel the transfer. But since this Memo. referred only to one
case and that person died, no action was taken. But other similar cases seem to remain
untouched. The officials of the Department of Intermediate Education and Collegiate
Education who appeared before the Commission, however, claimed that those vacancies
were direct recruitment vacancies and the candidates from other Zones were taken into
those direct recruitment vacancies and hence no injustice was done to the promotees.
This line of argument is untenable. As the Secretary, School Education pointed out, in the
first place it is not within the powers of a Head of Department to effect inter-zonal
transfers. The issue in this particular case is not merely of unauthorised transfer or of
injustice to the 2nd Petitioner or promotees but of a clear violation of the Presidential Order
to the detriment of the rights of local candidates of “City of Hyderabad” to the direct
recruitment posts. The direct recruitment posts were not filled up due to Government ban.
So Physical Director Grade II were brought in from other Zones to the City Cadre to fill up
these direct recruitment vacancies. Such inter-cadre transfer is in contravention of the
Presidential Order and has deprived the local candidates of the City of Hyderabad of their
legitimate posts by direct recruitment.
However, in case the Government have permitted filling up of direct recruitment

posts through promotions, these promotions should have gone to the Physical Education
Teachers (PETs) of the City Cadre because the promotional line is from the Physical
Education Teachers (PETs) of Junior Colleges and High Schools and there were enough
qualified Physical Education Teachers (PETs) at least in the Attached High Schools (the
figures of Physical Education Teachers available in the City Cadre in Junior Colleges are not
available). Thus the alternative to direct recruitment i.e., promotion has also resulted in
depriving the candidates of the City Cadre of their due promotions by inducting the
Physical Directors Grade II from other Zones.
Hence, the Physical Directors Grade II brought from other Zones should be
repatriated to their respective Zones where they may be fitted into their own inter-se
seniorities in their original posts. The consequential vacancies should be filled up by direct
recruitment with the prescribed reservation for locals, or by promotion from the eligible
candidates of the City Cadre from Physical Education Teachers (PETs) of High Schools or
Junior Colleges, as per Rules.
It is for information of the Government that Honourable A.P.A.T in its “interim

orders” dated 04/02/2003 in OA No.754/2003 filed by Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao, directed that
“pending disposal of the OA the Respondents may proceed with enquiry but no final orders
be passed against the Applicant”. However in its order dated 30.04.2003 Hon‟ble A.P.A.T
while modifying the earlier interim orders directed that–
“It is clarified that One Man Commission can proceed with the enquiry and
any report submitted by One Man Commission shall not be acted upon by
the Government, until further orders from this Tribunal”.
In this O.A. from among the above mentioned Petitioners only 1 st and 2nd
Petitioners are Respondents (copy of the order is enclosed).
In conclusion the Commission holds that:-
1. The promotion of Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao on 17.11.1978 as Physical Director

Grade-II was „ab initio‟ void.
2. All the promotions of Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao right from Physical Director
Grade-II up to the present position held by him have been „ab initio‟ void.
3. Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao should be reverted to his original position as

Physical Education Teacher (PET) as of 17.11.1978. Thereafter,
according to his inter-se seniority with the other colleagues in
the City Cadre, he may be considered for promotions as and
when due. Meanwhile, he may be relieved of the presently
illegally held post.
4. The contention of Sri M. Satyanarayana Reddy and Sri B. Seetha

Ram Reddy that they should be given promotions on the basis of
the promotion of Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao is untenable, as Sri K.
Sanjeeva Rao‟s promotion itself is held to be „ab initio‟ void.
5. The G.O.Ms.No.1085, Education Department, dt.9.9.81 has no

relevance with regard to the issues involved in this case under
6. The contention of Sri N.J. Diwakar becomes redundant in view of

the fact that Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao has no „locus standi‟ in Zone-
VI.
7. The Physical Directors Grade II brought into the City Cadre on

transfer by Director of Higher Education from other local cadres /
zones to fill in the vacancies due to the ban on direct recruitment
should be repatriated to their original local Cadres / Zones to
take place in their due seniorities there in their original posts.
The consequential vacancies should be filled in by direct
recruitment with due reservation for locals, or by promotion from
eligible candidates of the City Cadre, as the case may be, as per
Rules.
8. In view of the Interim Orders of the Hon‟ble A.P.A.T. in

O.A.No.754/2003, the Commission has given its findings
hereinabove. But the action on these findings may be taken by

the Government only in the light of the Hon‟ble A.P.A.T. Interim
Order dt.30.04.2003 which has been cited hereinabove, or any
subsequent orders of A.P.A.T.
Encl.:
One as above.
(J.M. GIRGLANI),
ONE MAN COMMISSION (SPF).
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Education (Higher Education) Department.
2. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Education (School Education) Department.
3. The Secretary to Government,
General Administration (SPF) Department for information.
4. The Commissioner and Director of School Education,
Saifabad, Hyderabad.
5. The Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education,
Near Lata Talkies, Nampally, Hyderabad.
6. The Commissioner of Collegiate Education,
Near Lata Talkies, Nampally, Hyderabad.
Copy to the Petitioners –

Sri M. Satyanarayana Reddy, Lecturer in Physical Education, Govt. Comprehensive
College, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.
Sri B. Seetha Ram Reddy, Physical Director, Grade-II, Govt. Junior College,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
Sri N. J. Diwakar, Lecturer, Govt. College of Physical Education, Hyderabad.
Copy to The Respondent – Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao, Inspector of

Physical Education (Boys), Domalguda, Hyderabad.
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
IN THE ANDHRA PRADESH ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT HYDERABAD

OA.NO.754/2003 Date of order 30.04.2003
PRESENT
THE HON‟BLE MR.KOKA SATYANARAYANA RAO, MEMBER (J)
(constituting as a Bench u/s.5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985)
BETWEEN
K.Sanjeeva Rao,
Inspector of Physical Education (Boys)
Domalguda, Hyderabad ……. Applicant
AND
1. The Government of A.P., rep. By its chief Secretary,

Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.
2. The One Man Commission (S.P.F)
K Block, II Floor, Room No. 320,
A.P Secretariat, Hyderabad.
3. The Government of A.P., rep. By its Secretary,
Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
4. The Commissioner & Director of School
Education, A.P, Hyderabad.
5. B. Seetharam Reddy, Physical Director,
Government Junior College, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
6. M. Satyanarayana Reddy, Former Lecturer in Physical Education,
DIET, Neredmet, presently working at Institure of Advanced Studies in
Education, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.
……… Respondents
APPEARANCE
For the Applicant : Mr. M. Jagapathi Rao, Advocate

For the Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. A. Saichakravarthy, G.P. for GAD
(S)
For the Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr. D.Ramesh, G.P. for Edn(S)
For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. M.Ramgopal Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent No.6 : Mr. K.G.Krishna Murthy, Advocate
The Tribunal made the following:
ORDER:
Interim orders passed on 4.2.2003 are modified as follows:

It is clarified that One Man Commission can proceed with the enquiry and any
report submitted by One Man Commission shall not be acted upon by the Government,
until further orders from this Tribunal.
Sd/-
K.VIJAYAKUMAR
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
// True Copy //
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER

Lr.No.11/OMC/B1/E(S.E.)/2003, Dt.14–08-2003.
From
J.M. Girglani, IAS (Retd.),
Room No.320, „K‟ Block, 2nd Floor,
AP Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
Sri B. Seetha Ram Reddy,
Physical Director,
Government Junior College,
Kachiguda,
Hyderabad.
Sir,
Sub: OMC (SPF) - Representation of Sri B. Seetha Ram Reddy Physical Director
Government Junior College Kachiguda Hyderabad Urban District – Regarding.
Ref: 1. OMC (SPF) Proceedings No.06/49/OMC/B1/2001, dated 9- 6-2003.

2. Your Representation dt.29-7-2003.
*****
With reference to your representation 2nd cited, I am to inform you that as pointed
out by you in your representation, in para 1 of the One Man Commission Proceedings first
cited there is no indication that you were senior or junior to Sri K. Sanjeeva Rao. The
Proceeding had to be worded as such since the representations submitted by you were all
joint representations.
Regarding your grievance about the transfer of Physical Education Teachers from
other Zones, the One Man Commission gave his findings at point 7 of the concluding para
of the Proceedings.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Copy to File
61
Proceeding No.06/68/OMC/A.1/2003, Dt.17–07-2003.
Sub: OMC (SPF) - Representation of Sri V.R. Surender Babu, Sr. Assistant for
promotion as Superintendent in the O/o the Executive Engineer, Godavari
Lift Irrigation Scheme Division No.3, Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad – Proceedings
issued.
Ref: Representation from Sri V.R. Surender Babu, Sr. Assistant O/o the Executive
Engineer, Godavari Lift Irrigation Scheme, Hyderabad, Dt. 16/05/2003.
***
The matter pertains to the individual representation of Sri V.R. Surender Babu, Sr.
Assistant O/o the Executive Engineer, Godavari Lift Irrigation Scheme, Hyderabad.
2 Sri V.R. Surender Babu, Sr. Assistant, O/o E.E., GLIS, Division.3, Hyderabad has
started that he was appointed as Jr. Assistant on 23.03.1977 in Inter State Joint Project
under administrative control of C.E, Inv., Hyderabad. The above division is located in zone
VI and is a separate entity for all purpose for appointment, promotion, seniority etc. The
above division was temporarily diverted and attached to P.I.C Warangal (Zone V) to look
after the Technical work of the circle in the year 1980. Subsequently the division was
again detached and attached to I.P.I circle, Warangal in the year 1984. Even the division
is working under the control of S.E., the division is identified as a separate entity and it
was under the administrative control of C.E., Inv., Hyderabad. In view of the above, the
seniority of the division has to be maintained separately and the consequential vacancies
arose should have to be filled in with the eligible staff of the division with the approved
seniority list. As per the seniority list, in the category of Jr. Assistants of the Pochampad
Investigation, Warangal, he stood at Sl.No.35.
3 The Petitioner has alleged that a vacancy of Superintendent post was arised in
1992, this vacancy should have been filled in with reference to the seniority list, but one
Sri Madhusudan, who belongs to Pochampad Investigation Circle, Warangal (Zone V),
where his seniority lien is being maintained is diverted to this division illegally and holding
the Addl. Charge of Superintendent post though fully qualified person is available in the
division, which is not correct according to rules and regulations. According to the
seniority, he was fully qualified, bornist of the division and eligible for holding the post of
Superintendent as such the above ineligible person may be repatriated to his original circle
and he may be promoted as Superintendent as per rules and regulations.
4 It is seen from the copy of the letter No.ES/EC3/ENC/919/2002, dt 28/12/2002 of

S.E, P.I.C, Warangal addressed to ENC (AW) stating that as per service particulars, Sri M.
Madhusudhan belongs to Vennavaram village, Mahaboobabad Mandal, Warangal District of
zone V and was promoted as Sr. Assistant and posted to this division on emergency and
on OD basis. It shows that Sri M. Madhusudhan Sr. Asst. Warangal of zone V is working in
zone VI vacancy of I.S.J.P Division, Hyderabad. Further the records show that the CE
(inv.) Hyderabad vide proceedings No.H/13198/76, dt.04-05-1976, that the I.S.J.P
Division Hyderabad with four sub-divisions will function as a separate unit for the purpose
of recruitment. But the S.E.P.I Circle Warangal has given promotion to Sri
M.Madhusudhan as Sr. Asst. and posted Sri M.Madhusudhan to Inter State Joint Project
Division Hyderabad and he joined on 16/03/1981, but the services of Sri M.Madhusudhan
Sr. Asst. have not been regularized in the cadre of Sr. Asst. in view of the Hon‟ble A.P
Lokayukta complaint No. 249/2001/B2, dt. 25/02/2002 and Hon‟ble APAT OA No. 243/190
to 2433/90.
5 It is further seen from the said letter of S.E., P.I.C., that V.R.Surender Babu Sr.
Asst. has been placed in full Addl. Charge of the post of Superintendent by the C.E (Inv.)
Hyderabad, earlier vide proceedings H2(3)/247/99, dt. 20/11/99. It could not be
materialized, in view of the Hon‟ble A.P.A.T Hyderabad direction on OA 6953/1999 with
V.M.A 544/99 and Sri M. Madhusudhan has continued as incharge superintendent and that
as per the Tribunal direction the Addl. Charge arrangement of the post of superintendent
could not be changed. But as per seniority list of Division office (zone VI) Sri V.R.Surender
Babu is eligible candidate in zone VI.
6 During the meeting held on 24-06-2003 with the Engineers-in-Chief the

representation of Sri V.R. Surendra Babu came for discussions with the Engineer-in-Chief
(AW) I & CAD and he explained that the Inter State Joint Project is not a state level
institution and hence the employees from the other zones cannot be transferred to it.
However, since the Project, as a circle covers more than one zone the seniority of the
whole of the circle has been considered in giving promotions to the cadre of
Superintendents,
7 However it was clarified that the posts of Senior Assistant & Superintendents are
Zonal Posts and the transfer/ promotions are to be restricted to in the particular zone only,
even though a circle office crosses more than one zone. Further the seniority is to be
considered within the zone for zonal cadre, District has a unit for District Cadres but not
the Circle, which is an administrative unit, as envisaged in the Presidential Order.
Amendment to the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules has also been brought out in this regard
in the G.O.Ms.No.803/G.A(SER.B) Dept. dated 29.12.1980 and to A.P Last Grade Service
Rules in the G.O.Ms.No.353 , G.A (SER.) Dept. dt, 30.06.1981. In the rules also the unit
of appointment shall be a full zone or two or three zones comprising a multi zones, but not
parts of zones.
8. In view of the above circumstances the representations of Sri. V.R. Surendra Babu
Senior Assistant deserves consideration for seniority and promotion, since, the Sri M.
Madhusudan, Senior Assistant belongs to zone V, and working in the Inter State Joint
Project Division on OD basis, and hence is not eligible for seniority and promotion as
Superintendent being on an O.D. post as he belongs to zone-V and therefore shall be
repatriated back to his zone. Promoting a person on O.D is repugnant to Service Rules,
Fundamental Rules and all cannons of Service norms.
9. In the light of the above position the Govt. in I & CAD Department may instruct the
Engineer-in-Chief (AW), I & CAD department are requested to take necessary action to file
a revision petition in O.A. No.6953/89 before the APAT for vacation of stay and render
justice to Sri V.R. Surendra Babu in seniority and promote him to the post of
Superintendent in Inter State Joint Project Sri M. Madhusudhan should be sent back from
O.D to his original post.
J.M.GIRGLANI
To
The Prl. Secretary to Govt.
I & CAD Department,
Copy to: 1) The Engineer in Chief (AW) I & CAD, Dept.
Errummanzil, Hyderabad.
2) V.R Surender Babu, Sr. Asst., O/o Executive Engineer,
Godavari Lift Irrigation Scheme, Hyderabad.
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
62
Proceedings No.6/51/OMC/A2/2001-4, Dt.01–08-2003
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Sericulture Deptt. – Representation from Sri K. Rama

Swamy, Jr. Assistant, O/o. Dy. Director of Sericulture, Warangal –
Proceedings – Issued.
Ref: 1. From Sri K. Rama Swamy, Junior Asst., O/o. Deputy Director of
Sericulture, Warangal, dt.16-7-2001.
2. From the Commissioner of Sericulture, Hyderabad, Lr.Rc.No.4560/2001-
B1, dt.11-07-2002.
*****
Sri K. Rama Swamy, Junior Assistant, O/o. Deputy Director of Sericulture,

Warangal submitted a representation to One Man Commission (SPF) stating that he was
appointed as Junior Assistant through District Selection Committee, Warangal and was
allotted to the Department of Sericulture to work in the Office of Assistant Director of
Sericulture, Eturnagaram, Warangal District (Zone-V) in the year 1987. At the time of his
appointment one Sri A. Srinivasa Rao, who actually belonged to Zone-II was also working
as Typist in Zone-V and in view of Sri Srinivasa Rao his Zonal Seniority for promotion to
the post of Senior Assistant got effected, in the year 1991, when Sri Srinivasa Rao got
promoted as Senior Assistant. Shri K. Rama Swamy alleges that the appointment of Sri
A. Srinivasa Rao in Zone – V was completely in violation of G.O.Ms.No.610 and hence
requested to rectify the injustice.
As per the report of the Commissioner of Sericulture, vide Rc.No.4560/2001-B1,

dated 11-7-2002, Sri A. Srinivasa Rao, of Zone-II was allotted by A.P.P.S.C., to Zone – V
as a non-local candidate. He joined duty as Typist on 03-05-1982 in the office of the
Assistant Director of Sericulture, Bhadrachalam, Khammam Dist., (Zone – V) while the
petitioner Sri K. Rama Swamy who was appointed as Junior Assistant through District
Selection Committee joined duty on 19-05-1987 in the office of the Asst., Director of
Sericulture, Eturnagaram, Warangal District of the same Zone. As per the dates of
appointment Sri A. Srinivasa Rao was Senior to the petitioner and the promotions to the
cadre of Senior Assistant were considered according to Qualification / Seniority.
In view of the foregoing details, this Commission holds that no violation of

Presidential Order had happened in this case. Hence the Representation of Sri K. Rama
Swamy is hereby rejected.
J.M. GIRGLANI
To
Sri K. Rama Swamy,
Junior Assistant.
The Commissioner of Sericulture,
Hyderabad.
Copy to:
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Agri.

& Coop. (Seri.) Department.
2. The President, The Telangana Non-Gazetted
Office Union, District Branch, Warangal.
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
63
Proceeding No.06/88/OMC(A-1)/2003, Dt.30-08-2003.
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Home Department - Armed Reserve Police (AR) –

Representation of Sri R.Venkateswarlu, Asst. Commissioner of Police
(Admn.) – Proceedings – Issued.
Ref: 1. From Sri R. Venkateswarlu, ACP (Admn.) CAR Hqrs. Hyderabad & Sr. Vice
President, A.P. Police Gazetted Officers Association – Reptn.
Dt.26-6-2003.
2. OMC (SPF) D.O.Lr.No.06/88/OMC(A1)/2003-1, dt.28-6-2003.
3. OMC (SPF) Lr.No.06/88/OMC(A1)/2003-2, dt.05-8-2003.
4. From Sri K. Naseeruddin, A.C.P. Home Guards, Hyderabad, Reptn. Dt.1-
8-2003.
5. From Sri B. Gopal Rao, Addl. S.P. P.T.O. Hyderabad Reptn. Dt.1-8-2003.
*****
Heard all points of view mentioned by the two sides affected. From Government
side Sri Rajeev Trivedi, IPS, Additional Secretary stated Government‟s point of view; from
DG&IG of Police side Sri I.J.Nagia, IPS, Additional Director General of Police
(Administration) stated the views of Head of the Department; from Commandant,
SAR,CPL, Amberpet, Sri K.S.N.Murthy, Administrative Officer stated the point of view of
his office.
Additional D.G.P., Sri Nagia, IPS elucidated the facts relevant to the case covered
by OMC D.O.Lr.NO.06/88/OMC(A-1)/2003-1, dt.28.6.2003 on the representation of Sri
R.Venkateswarlu, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Hyderabad. Sri Nagia
mentioned that the staffing structure of SAR,CPL, Amberpet was rather peculiar with a
very broad base and narrow top from C.I. onwards which left very little scope for
promotions at all levels from S.I. onwards. As the cadre management authority, the D.G &
I.G.P., therefore had to seek opportunities where the staff could get some relief by way of
promotions through deputations. It is because of this that the officers of the rank of S.I.
and C.I. were being deputed wherever there was demand from Organisations like the
Intelligence Bureau, Excise etc. The deputations provided for promotion opportunities
which were lacking in the SAR, CPL, Amberpet.
He conceded that in the anxiety to provide avenues of promotions there might

have been some bypassing of the normal rules and procedures but care will be taken to
ensure against such deviations.
A number of persons who are opposing the petition of Sri R.Venkateswarlu, ACP,
Headquarters, Hyderabad and others mentioned that it is not only SAR, CPL, Amberpet
from which people had been deputed to Intelligence Bureau and other Organisations but a
large number were also deputed from the regular police force. If one vacancy had
generated about three promotions through the process of deputation in SAR, CPL,
Amberpet, they were ready to give instances where through the same process in the City
Police one vacancy had generated even nine promotions. The lists furnished by them are
enclosed for DGP‟s scrutiny and report.
Sri R.Venkateswarlu gave a list of 27 RSIs from SAR, CPL, Amberpet along with
their notional dates, who were sent to various departments. According to him the process
of deputation had resulted in promotions to all of them with notional dates which were
traced to the junior most persons who held the post of C.I. in SAR, CPL, Amberpet, by
promotion in the vacancies created by their deputation. He mentioned that the total
number of sanctioned posts of C.Is. in SAR, CPL, Amberpet is only 6 (six), whereas the
total number of C.Is. who originally belong to this unit but are on deputation as well as in
the unit itself is 27. In other words the 6 posts have generated 5 times the number of
promotions which is a very odd phenomenon. This has affected the opportunities which
should have gone to the incumbents of the regular police force because most of the
deputations are in Multi-Zone-II to which Zone-VI belongs. The petitioner himself belongs
to City Police (which was till recently excluded from the operation of Presidential Order, till
the Judgement of the Hon‟ble High Court brought it under Zone-VI). Hence City Police was
on par with SAR, CPL, Amberpet both being excluded organizations. The opposite side has
in its petition pointed out that the City Police was also a beneficiary of similar multiple
promotions generated by one deputation in Multi-Zone-II. Therefore, Sri Venkateswarlu
had no cause for grievance as the process of deputation and generation of multiple
promotions through it, had benefited both the City Police as well as SAR, CPL, Amberpet.
The Additional DGP said that the persons from regular police and City Police were
often unwilling to go to Intelligence wing. Therefore the promotions were given to SAR
CPL, Amberpet incumbents, who were willing to go on deputation. The Intelligence wing
also was unwilling to relieve those who were already there and adjusted them to
promotion posts when their promotions in the parent organisations became due.
It is good that this meeting was held and the Commission also appreciates that all
sides have come fully prepared and the Addl. DGP threw light on the whole system of
deputations in the police department and the ground realities governing such deputations.
The Commission appreciates the difficulties of the cadre management authorities in such a
vast and varied department. However the Commission‟s task is limited and that is to
ensure that there is no deviation from the letter and spirit of the Presidential Order as it
represents a very delicate balance of a political settlement.
In the first place the procedure being followed in the department regarding
deputations is not in conformity with Fundamental Rules and Executive Instructions issued
thereon in Part-V, Chapter-XII of Fundamental Rules and General Rules 8, 10, 11, 18 and
21 that govern deputation. Normally a person on deputation cannot be given promotion
while he is away. It is only when he joins his parent organisation that he can get
promotion. He cannot get promotion in-absentia. But in police department, it now
emerged that the persons are promoted in-absentia while on deputation in the other wings
of department or in other departments and they get adjusted to promotion posts in those
departments, and the same vacancy generates multiple promotions in the parent wing of
the department.
In fact the concept of deputation is that a person goes on tenure for a fixed period.
When he is due for promotion in the parent unit he has to come back to get the
promotion. Otherwise his lien as such cannot be promoted, only the person can be
promoted. But here the whole system has been to promote the lien and on that basis the
person gets promotion post in the organisation where he is on deputation. This system
militates against the service rules.
All the provisions of Fundamental Rules and the Executive Instructions issued
thereon in Chapter-XII and all the provisions related to deputation in General Rules
mentioned above have been over looked totally.
In as far as the Presidential Order is concerned the deputations have to be legal

and in conformity with the Fundamental Rules and General Rules as they involve rights of
local candidates which cannot be trampled upon through illegal deputations.
Secondly deputations are governed only by Para 9(B) of G.O.(P) NO.728,

dt.1/11/75 but as has been seen, in all the wings of the Police Department para 9(B) is
observed in the breach. The reasons normally given are that people are not willing to go
on deputation and so only willing people are taken and therefore the fair share proportion
cannot be followed.
The Commission finds that the deputations takes place to
1) Other wings of the police department viz., Intelligence, Grey Hounds, Railway
Police, SIB, SSF and Police Training College. (Intelligence Wing, Railway Police, PTC falls
under GSR 527(E)).
2) Three of these organisations are excluded from the Presidential Order under
para 14. But all the three are expected to take deputationists (1) legally and (2) on a fair
share basis of para 9(B) of G.O.P.No.728. This has not happened, which means, strictly
speaking, the various zones have been deprived of sending their local candidates on
deputation. At their cost, it is the excluded organisation SAR, CPL, Amberpet that has
gained, but not exclusively. It is also alleged that deputationsts are there in these
excluded organisation from city police hich also till recently was an excluded organisation.
One of the circulars of D.G. & I.G.P. shows that for security wing of Intelligence proportion
of posts was made between the two multi-zones and also SAR, CPL, Amberpet. However
this does not satisfy the requirements of para 9(B) of G.O.P No.728 for the following
reasons:-
a). Para 9(B) of G.O.P.No.728 does not contemplate deputation taking place
from an excluded organisation either to a localised cadre or to another excluded
organisation. Excluded organisations can be recipients of deputationists and they are not,
in the scheme of Presidential Order and G.O.P. No.728 lending organisations.
b). Secondly the fair share is very specifically laid down in Para 9(B) in terms of
a formula, based on basic cadre strength of each local area (District/Zone/Multi-zone as
the case may be). In practice the police department has found it very difficult to follow
this. But since any deviation from Para 9(B) under the Presidential Order affects the
promotion opportunities of persons in localised cadre it falls under the category of
deviations of Presidential Order. The deviation gets compounded when it is basically also in
violation of the relevant Fundamental Rules and General Rules cited herein above.
In as far as Mr.R.Venkateswarlu, ACP, Headquarters, Hyderabad is concerned, he

belongs to the City Police which was till recently an excluded organisation and from an
excluded organisation it is not contemplated that there should be deputation to another
excluded organisation or to any localised cadres of other departments. Hence personally
he or anyone from City Police has no grievance or no right that have been adversely
affected. It is only after City Police has come under localisation after the High Court
Judgement that any right of deputation accrues to the City Police officials.
After the High Court Judgement, the City Police become a part of local cadre and
the posts of ARI, RI belongs to zone-VI. Hereafter the DG&IGP would, it is hoped, take
into account the formula 9(B) and work out the fair share in giving deputations to
excluded wings mentioned above.
In as far as Grey Hounds, SIB and SSF they are not included in any GSR. Perhaps
they were created long after the Presidential Order. Again legally speaking they become
part of local cadres and local cadres should be formed in them. But why they are taking
people on deputation is because it is important for them to have selectivity of individual
suitability for particular nature of the organisation. Here again being localised
organisations their selection should be limited only to the same local cadre (District/Zone
as the case may be). It would be advisable, if the D.G. & IGP feels that localised
deputation will create constraints to selectivity, than these should be brought under GSR
527(E) like the Intelligence wing. But even then they will not be able to escape the
application of Para 9(B) of G.O.P. No.728.
The entire case shows that there is need for the following action.
(1). To rework out the entire set of promotion dates by applying the Fundamental
Rules and Service Rules pertaining to deputation so that the violation of these rules which
has resulted in multiple deputations and wrongful advantages is set-right and the
promotion dates are revised and given according to the Fundamental Rules and General
Rules cited hereinabove.
In saying this, it is not the Presidential Order that we are applying. If the Presidential
Order is to be applied all the deputations should be revised retrospectively based on Para
9(B).
(2). Deputations to other departments
(a). Printing Press: There is no deputation involved because the government have
created a post which was allotted by DG&IGP to SAR, CPL, Amberpet and the C.I. from
there is supposed to go on other duty to the Press but not on deputation.
(b). Excise & other departments: The deputation to these departments are not to any
excluded organisation of the department but to the cadres which should be localised
cadres. The task force should also be a localised cadre and the deputation should only
be from the same local cadre (District/Zone) of the police department not from an
excluded organisation like SAR,CPL, Amberpet or City Police which was hitherto an
excluded organisation.
(3). The seniorities and promotion dates would necessarily have to be revised in the light
of the observations of the Commission.
(J.M.GIRGLANI)
To
1. The Prl. Secretary to Govt.,
Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Director General & Inspector General of Police,
A.P. Hyderabad.
3. The Commandant, SAR, Central Police Lines,
Amberpet, Hyderabad.
Copy to: Sri R. Venkateswarlu, (Petitioner)

Asst. Commissioner of Polic (Admn.),
SAR Hqrs., Hyderabad.
Sri K. Naseeruddin, (Petitioner)

Asst. Commissioner of Police, Home Guards,Hyderabad.
Sri B. Gopal Rao, (Petitioner) Addl. S.P.,

Police Transport Organization,Hyderabad.
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
64
Lr.No.11/OMC/MA&UD/2002, Dt.30-08-2003
From:
J.M. Girglani IAS (Retd.),
„K‟ Block, 2nd Floor, Room No.320,
A.P. Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
To
The Principal Secretary to Govt.,
Municipal Administration & Urban
Development Department,
A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad (w.e).
The Secretary to Govt.,

General Admn. (SPF) Dept.,
A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.
The Engineer-in-Chief,
Public Health, A.C. Guards,
Hyderabad (w.e).
The Managing Director,

Hyderabad Metro Water
Works & Sewerage Board,
Khairtabad, Hyderabad (w.e).
Sri Y. Satti Reddy,

Municipal Engineer,
Cuddapah Municipality, Cuddapah.
The Secretary,
Public Health Engineering Association,
Zone – VI, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad.
Sir,
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Meeting on 28-08-2003 at 3.00 P.M. – Minutes communicated
– Reg.
Ref: OMC Lr.No.11/OMC/MA&UD-B2/02, Dt.22-08-2003.
*****
I am directed to invite your attention to the reference cited. A copy of the Minutes
of the meeting held on 28-08-2003at 3.00 P.M. in the Chamber of One Man Commission
with MA & UD Dept. / Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health / Hyderabad Metro Water Works &
Sewerage Board / Secretary, Public Health Engineering Association, Zone – VI is enclosed

herewith.
I am directed to request the Prl. Secretary, MA & UD Dept., Engineer-in-Chief,

Public Health & Managing Director, Hyderabad Metro Water Works & Sewerage Board to
kindly furnish the information pointed out therein in respect of the Dept. to One Man
Commission.
This may be treated as most immediate.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING HELD IN THE CHAMBERS OF ONE MAN

COMMISSION (SPF) ON 28th AUGUST, 2003 AT 3.00 P.M. WITH THE
OFFICIALS OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, M.A. & U.D.
DEPARTMENT AND H.M.W.S. & S. BOARD.
* * *
Present:
Sarvasri
1. J.M.GIRGLANI, IAS (Retd.), OMC (SPF)

2. P.MOHAN LAL, Ex-officio Jt. Secretary & O.S.D. OMC(SPF)
3. N.RAMA MOHAN RAO, Joint Secretary to Government, M.A. & U.D. Department, A.P
Secretariat
4. B.CHANDRASEKHAR, Dy. Chief Engineer, O/o ENC, Public Health Engineering
Department.
5. LATIF KHAN, O/o Managing Director, Hyderabad Metro Water Works & Sewerage
Board
6. S.BAL REDDY, President, PHEA Association.
Sri Chandrasekhar, Deputy Chief Engineer, O/o Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health

Engineering Department stated as under:-
1). This Department Deputy Executive Engineers are posted to Hyderabad Metro Water
Works & Sewerage Board according to the number required by them. It is they who do
the deployment within the Department. The Public Health Engineering Department has no
idea whom they post to the projects and whom to the Departmental posts.
2). Initially 48 posts were calculated for the projects and the Special Office of Hyderabad
Metro Water Works & Sewerage Board shown against Public Health Engineering
Department notified under GSRs in the Presidential Order. According to the Fair Share
formula prescribed in para 9(B) of G.O.P.No.728, G.A (SPF-A) Dept., dt. 1-11-75 these 48
posts were apportioned among all the zones including the City cadre (which he calls Zone-
VII). The Deputy Executive Engineers were posted in that proportion. Presently there are
only 26 Deputy Executive Engineers from other zones in the Department against 48 posts
in the projects and the Special Office. The total number of posts in the Department is 82.
Whether deputationists from other zones are posted in the Department or the projects is
not known to the Public Health Engineering Department.
3). He agrees that all the projects including the notified in the Presidential Order against
Public Health Engineering Department under GSR 525(E) Manjeera Water Supply Scheme,
Second Phase and Remodelling of Water distribution system in the twin cities have been
completed long time ago, though not notified as completed. They are under maintenance
phase. However the deputations are being made as if projects exist. In spite of projects
being completed the 48 project posts have not been disbanded by the Department and are
being utilised in the Hyderabad Metro Water Works & Sewerage Board. The Special Office
under GSR 526(E) Manjeera Investigation Circle is also closed down.
4). Two new projects have been started one, Krishna Drinking Water Supply Project the
other Mega City Project Work is going on in the concerned areas. But the headquarters for
the Divisions and Sub-divisions for those works are located, at least for the present, in
Hyderabad city. These projects are not notified as Major Development Project under GSR
525(E), issued under the Presidential Order. The Department proposed to get them
notified.
5). The Department itself has most of the posts in Hyderabad city. But there are a few
Sub-divisions located outside the city in Ranga Reddy District and Medak District.
Mr.Latif Khan from O/o M.D., Hyderabad Metro Water Works & Sewerage Board confirmed
the above facts.
I have mentioned to the officers present as under:-
1). That the projects having been completed, there is no project work for the
Assistant Executive Engineers & Deputy Executive Engineers in these projects. Therefore
there are no posts in the projects as such. The only work is maintenance work which is not
project work but regular Departmental function. The posts of Assistant Executive
Engineers / Deputy Executive Engineers intended for projects are being utilised in the
Department for the departmental functions. Therefore there are no grounds for sending
anybody to the Department on deputation basis which is intended only for the projects
under the aforesaid para 9(B). Since all the Deputy Executive Engineers are engaged in
departmental work and occupy departmental posts only they should be posted according
to the local cadre rules. As the HMWS&S Board is under the City Cadre under GSR 528(E)
all the AEE & Deputy Executive Engineer posts located in the “City of Hyderabad” (as
notified in the First Schedule of Presidential Order) should be occupied only by the
Assistant Executive Engineers & Deputy Executive Engineers from the City Cadre.
2). All the Assistant Executive Engineers & Deputy Executive Engineers posts
located in Medak and R.R. Districts should be occupied only by those from zone-VI cadre.
3). All the Assistant Executive Engineers & Deputy Executive Engineers deputed
from other zones than the City Cadre should be withdrawn except those from VI zone who
are occupying the posts located in the VI zone i.e. in Medak district or Ranga Reddy
District.
4). Hyderabad Metro Water Works & Sewerage Board will send to the ENC (PHED)
immediately within 48 hours a list of the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers & Deputy
Executive Engineers whose offices or Sub-divisions are located in the City of Hyderabad
and in zone-VI.
5). The two new projects under Krishna Drinking Water Project & Mega City Project
cannot at present be treated as Major Development Projects. Therefore the posts
belonging to these projects should be treated like all other departmental posts. Since the
offices and sub-divisions of the projects are presently located in “City of Hyderabad”, these
posts belong to the City Cadre. If and when the offices are shifted to the project sites
those posts shall be filled from the concerned zone in which the offices are located.
6). The Hyderabad Metro Water Works & Sewerage Board representative
mentioned that proposals are being submitted to the Government for notification of the
Krishna Drinking Water Project & Mega City project under GSR 525 (E). As and when
these are notified under GSR 525 (E) the Public Health Engineering Department will work
out the fair share proportions for deputation from each zone, and depute accordingly.
7). Whenever Assistant Executive Engineers or Deputy Executive Engineers are

posted by the Public Health Engineering Department the Departments should specify that
they are intended for the Department and should not be moved from the zone concerned.
8) As and when Krishna Drinking Water Project & Mega City Project or any other
Project is notified under GSR 525 (E), the order deputing the Assistant Executive
Engineers and Deputy Executive Engineers should specifically mentioned that they are
intended for the Projects and cannot be shifted to the Department as that would be in
contravention of the Presidential Order.
9) The Department has to work out and review retrospectively from the date of
completion of each project and calculate how many non-local Assistant Executive
Engineers and Deputy Execurtive Enginners have worked there since that date and
retrospectively calculate the seniority and promotions lost by the local Assistant Executive
Engineers and Deputy Executive Engineers of the concerned zone “City Cadre” or VI zone
as the case may be. The Department should take action to restore to those deprived
incumbents their wrongfully lost seniorities and promotions. Similarly the wrongfully
gained seniorities and promotions of the incumbents from other zones would have to be
reworked out retrospectively and revised accordingly.
Action taken on all the points may please be intimated to this Commission and to
Government in M.A & U. D Department and G.A (SPF) Department.
It was pointed to the Deputy Chief Engineer (PHED) that they have not been
sending reports to the references made by this Commission. He has promised to send the
reports within 48 hours.
(J.M.GIRGLANI)
To
(1) Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department
(2) Managing Director, Hyderabad Metro Water Works & Sewerage Board,
Khairtabad, Hyderabad
(3) Principal Secretary to Government, M.A & U. D Department with reference to
correspondence resting under his…….)
(4) Secretary Government G.A (SPF) Department, in continuation of the
Commission Lr.No.11/OMC/B2-PH/2003, dt.15.07.2003.
(5) Petitioners
(6) Secretary, Public Health Engineering Association, Zone-VI.
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
65
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHARA PRADESH
Proceedings No.11/OMC/PRE-B.2/2002, dt:05/09/2003.
Sub: OMC (SPF) – Appointment of candidates selected by APPSC for the post of
Assistant Executive Engineers by replacement of temporary Assistant
Executive Engineers- Proceedings of meeting – Communicated – Reg.
Ref: 1. Representation of Sri R.Ravindra Reddy for selected Assistant Executive

Engineers dated 15/11/2002.
2. From the unemployed civil engineers Joint Action Committee Representation
dated 27/11/2002.
3. From the E-N-C (PRED) Lr.No.DV/4/1195/2001, dt:28/01/2003.
4. From the APPR Engineers Association representation dt:30/01/2003 and
19/04/2003.
* * *
The petitioners have pointed out the irregularities in the recruitment of Assistant
Executive Engineers by the Panchayati Raj Engineering department in the years 1991 to
1995. These Assistant Executive Engineers were recruited from among the work charged
employees of different levels from Tracers to Work Inspectors. The Assistant Executive
Engineers should have been recruited through Public Service Commission. But the
government had permitted recruitment from among the work charged employees.
The case of the Association is that the Public Service Commission had recruited
some candidates for the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers on a notification issued by
the government. The government had cancelled this notification after the recruitment and
hence these candidates were not taken by the government and remained without any
appointment.
The candidates who had been appointed from among the work charged employees
continue to occupy the posts without regularisation which has not yet taken place. The
candidates were not taken on the basis of the Presidential Order. They were also taken
without any merit test. Being already employed their elevation to the post of Assistant
Executive Engineers is in the nature of promotion but it was called direct appointment.
The matter was discussed with the Engineer-in-Chief (PR) today. He mentioned that
he had already written that the appointments were done under government orders for
meeting an emergency situation of completing the programme of works under UK Aid.
The limited point for consideration of this Commission is whether in appointing the
work charged employees to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers, the Presidential
Order was properly followed. The Engineer-in-Chief (PR) has mentioned that they had
abided by the ratio of 60 per cent posts being given to the local candidates and 40 per
cent were treated by them as a quota for non-locals. Even in this calculation they have 8
local candidates less and 8 non-local candidates more in terms of this percentage as
under:
Zone Total Earmarked Appointed Excess

candidates
Local Non-Local Local Non-Local Local Non- Local
I 92 55 37 55 37 - -
II 54 32 22 35 19 +3 -3
III 75 45 30 54 21 +9 -9
IV 168 100 68 131 37 +31 -1
V 138 83 55 75 63 -8 +8
VI 167 100 67 108 59 -8 +8
There are two flaws in the recruitment in as far as the Presidential Order is
concerned.
1). The department has not verified the local status of the candidates in terms of
para-7 of the Presidential Order. The E-in-C (PR) and his officers admitted that
whoever was working in a particular zone was treated as a local candidate of that zone
since work charged employees were not taken and posted on the basis of the Presidential
Order, this criterion of place of work would not be relevant for knowing whether a
candidate is a local or non-local for the zone to which he was appointed.
2). The second flaw is that they have treated 40% as a quota for non-locals which
is not correct. It is the percentage for merit candidates.
Even in the context of these flaws we find that as seen from the above table, in
zone-II, III and IV there are more than 60% so called local candidates as per the criterion
applied; but in zone-V and VI there are 8 candidates less among local candidates in the
60% quota.
The entire recruitment is in contravention of the Presidential Order whatever be the

other defects in terms of General Service Rules, Fundamental Rules etc. The question
therefore is whether the candidates selected by the Public Service Commission should
replace these incumbents in office who have been appointed in contravention of the
Presidential Order.
The scope of the Commission‟s Terms of Reference does not permit it to decide on
this claim. If the government have decided that they shall not appoint these APPSC
selected candidates, it is between the government and those candidates. There is nothing
that this Commission has to say about their claim.
But as far as the validity of the appointment of the present incumbents stands, as
already mentioned above the appointments are made in violation of the Presidential Order.
The remedial action logically would be to ascertain the local candidate status of
each incumbent and put him in his local zone. The non-locals have no quota. 40% is a
merit quota. This is not a direct recruitment done on merit. So this 40% for non-locals has
no meaning. There is also no way of finding out who would have been in the merit quota
at that time. This will show:-
A). Some zones with local candidates in excess of 100% vacancies.

B). Some zones with 100% local candidates for the vacancies.
C). Some zones with 80 or more than 80% but less than 100% local candidates for
the vacancies.
D). Some zones with less than 80% local candidates.
In „A&B‟ the local candidates can occupy the vacancies upto 100%. In „C‟ all the
local candidates can occupy the vacancies even though these exceed 80%. The balance
vacancies left will go to the non-local who are the excess locals of „A‟ above. In case of D,
all the local candidates can occupy vacancies to the extent of their number. The shortfall
from 80% should be treated as local vacancies carried forward as a backlog. 40%
vacancies can be filled from among the excess of local candidates of „A‟, who will occupy
the vacancies as non-local candidates.
The backlog can be made good through the same method as was used in this
impugned recruitment, i.e., by special direct recruitment from among Work Inspectors
who would be local candidates for the zone in „D‟ category. If however there are not
enough local candidates available, then they should be recruited as A.E.Es from the open
market by a special recruitment.
The excess non-locals will have to occupy supernumerary posts in the zone in which
they are local candidates. Government can also revert them as Work Inspectors to become
part of the surplus manpower pool.
(J.M.GIRGLANI)
To
The Prl. Secretary to Government,
Panchayati Raj & Rural Development Department,
A.P Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
The Engineer-in-Chief,
Panchayati Raj Engineering Department,
Errammanzil,
Hyderabad.
Copy to: The Convener,

Unemployed Civil Engineers Joint Action Committee,
H.No.91, Behind Bus Depot,
Dilsukhnagar,
Hyderabad.
The President,
A.P Panchayati Raj Engineers Association,
Swamy Ramananda Theertha Grameena
Nirmana Bhavan,
Errammanzil Colony, Hyderabad.
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
66
Proceedings No. 06/63/OMC/B.1/2001, dated 15/09/2003
Sub: OMC – SPF – Technical Education Department – Estt. – Representation of Sri

J. Yadaiah Senior Assistant – Revised seniority claim over the non-locals –
Reg.
Ref: 1. Representation from Sri J. Yadaiah, Sr. Asst. Regional Joint Director‟s
Office, Hyderabad dated 16/08/2001 and 24/02/2003 and 25/08/2003.
2. From the Commissioner, Technical Education, Lr. No. 20690/2000 dated
03/07/2002, 29/11/2002 and 07/05/2003.
3. OMC Lr. No.06/63/OMC/B.1/2001, dated 31/03/2003.
* * *
Sri J. Yadaiah, Sr. Asst. O/o Commissioner of Technical Education in his

representation cited reported that in the City cadre he became Junior to some of non-
locals who were appointed in the State Level Institutions situated in the Hyderabad City
along with local candidates belonging to City Cadre. He was appointed as Jr. Asst. on
27/10/1976 in Govt. Technical High School and Central Workshop, Secunderabad and was
promoted as Sr. Asst. on 20/12/1990 at Govt. Polytechnic, Old city Hyderabad. He
contended that due to the intermixing of the cadres belonging to the Hyderabad City Cadre
with the employees of the State Level Institutions situated in the City, the Non-Locals got
a march over the Locals and thus he was deprived of his promotion chances.
Hearing was held on 24/02/2003. The Petitioner and the Officials of the Technical
Education Department attended the Hearing.
This is a peculiar case where three State Level Institutions of the Department of
Technical Education were treated as Institutions of city cadre right from the beginning of
the Presidential Order. And the recruitment for the post of LDCs and equivalent level either
through the Public Service Commission or Employment Exchange directly was done for the
vacancies of the City Cadre. Other offices of the Department in the city and these
Institutions together took the vacancies as a pool and allotments were made from out of
the candidates recruited for all those pooled vacancies. For promotions also, the common
seniority has been taken for the city cadre personnel along with the personnel of
these three State Level Institutions treating them as interchangeable and as common unit
of appointment. Actually, each of the State Level Institutions should have been treated as
a separate unit of appointment and each of the city cadre establishments like Polytechnics
etc. should also have been treated as separate units of appointments. Instead of doing
this all the city cadre establishments including these State Level Institutions were treated
as a single unit of appointment. Deputy Director and Assistant Director who appeared
were unable to show either the Service Rules or the scheme of localization approved for
the Department after the Presidential Order. They mentioned that they were following the
AP Ministerial Service Rules.
Under the Presidential Order the three State Level Institutions:

1. Institute of Leather Technology, Hyderabad.
2. Institute of Electronics, Hyderabad.
3. Institute of Printing Technology, Secunderabad.
are outside the purview of the Presidential Order excepting that if they take staff on tenure
basis, they should do so under the principle of equitable sharing laid down in para 11 (ii)
of the clarificatory G.O.P.No.728, dt: 01.11.1975 (Page 55 of the Guide Lines Book).
In the beginning for about 10 to 15 years, the Department has followed the wrong
practice of directly recruiting to the vacancies of these three Institutions pooling them with
the vacancies of the city cadre establishments. In case of direct recruitment to such
Institutions each should have been treated as a unit of appointment itself with internal
seniority and promotion. But here the seniority, promotions etc., were integrated with
those of the city cadre establishments. Thus, the seniorities of personnel of both City Level
Institutions and of these Institutions got distorted and one is not able to say who have
gained and who lost in such an invalid integrated seniority.
The Commission does not have the scheme of the localization of the Department to
say whether that Scheme has anything to do with such an invalid integration. However,
Deputy Director and Assistant Director personally told the Commission that the
Department has rectified the mistake prospectively and now they are taking staff on
tenure basis only on the equitable proportions principle laid down in Para 9 (B) of G.O.P.
728 dated 01-11-1975.
The grievance in this case is from the person (Petitioner) belonging to “City Cadre
establishment” who feels that the integration of their seniority with the State Level
Institutions has adversely affected his chances of promotion. However, neither he nor the
Department are in a position to say what he has lost and if so who has gained by the
integration. The Petitioner was therefore asked to workout and say what he has lost by
the integration seniority so that specific redressal can be ordered after examining his
specific grievance. He has however not been able to say what redressal he needs or what
has been the loss.
However, in due course of time, the petitioner has submitted the relevant
information to the Commission in the reference 3 rd cited and the same was sent for the
remarks of the Commissioner of Technical Education. But no reply has been received,
from the Head of the Department.
The aspect of this case in general is one of contravension of the Presidential Order
by the Department by adopting the wrong procedure mentioned above which has totally
distorted the seniorities and the prospects of all concerned. This is an issue that has to be
taken cognisance of by the Government so that such a thing do not happen again, or
elsewhere. The Government may kindly issue clear instructions in this regard so that if
there are any other Departments committing similar mistakes, they may desist from doing
so.
In the specific case of this Petitioner and the Department this Commission suggests
the following Remedial Action to the Government:
The cadre strength of each of State-level Institution and City cadre
offices should be demarcated in respect of each category. Through options,
persons may be allocated to each of the cadres. By fixing some criteria of
merit etc., the allocation of staff to each unit should be completed. The
seniority etc. should be re-fixed as per that merit. Seniorities should be
fixed for each unit of appointment. Necessary changes may be made in the
Service Rules to disentangle each of the State level Institutions from the
City cadre offices. The future recruitment to each of the State-level
Institution should be made separately as a separate unit of appointment so
also the seniority, promotion etc. The offices within the city of Hyderabad
which fall under City cadre can have integrated cadre separate from the
State-level Institutions.
There appears to be no possibility or need for retrospective action. The

separation should be in such a way that there is least harm caused to any
employee in terms of his seniority, promotion prospects etc., while
considering the request of the Petitioner.
The Government may also kindly instruct the Technical Education Department to
stop this wrong practice if they have not already stopped it; The
Department should take the staff on tenure basis as laid down in para 11 (ii) of the G.O.P.
No.728, dt:01.11.1975 or by direct recruitment treating these State Level Institutions, City
Cadre Institutions as separate Units of appointment, respectively.
(J.M. Girglani)
To
The Prl Secretary to Government,
Education (H.E Mon. Cell) Dept.,
A.P., Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
Copy to:-
1. The Commissioner of Technical Education, BRKR Bhavan,
Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad for taking necessary action.
2. Sri J.Yadaiah, Sr. Assistant, Quli Qutub Shah Government Polytechnic,
Hyderabad - 64
3. B-2 (W.es) for necessary action.
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER
67
Proceedings No.11/OMC/MA&UD/B2/2002, dated 22.09.2003.
Sub:- OMC(SPF) – Sri Y.R. Sathi Reddy, Dy.E.E. (HMWS&SB) – PH&ME Department
– Individual Petition – Proceedings – Regarding.
Ref:- 1. Representation of Sri Y.R. Sathi Reddy, Municipal Engineer, Cuddapah,

dated 12.11.02, 15.04.03 and 23.06.03.
2. E-in-C Public Health, Hyderabad Lr. No.SPF/CS3/2003-Vol.II, dated
01.09.2003.
***
In the Representation first cited the Petitioner Sri Y.R. Sathi Reddy, Deputy
Executive Engineer, Public Health & Municipal Engineering Department (now i/c Municipal
Engineer, Cuddapah Municipality) has contended that most of the posts of DEEs in
Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board are actually located in the zone VI,
exclusively attending to the work relating to the Districts which come under zone VI, but
all these posts are being treated as posts of Major Development Projects and hence
requested for suitable remedial action to protect the interest of the AEEs/DEEs of Zone VI.
The Representation has been heard; the officials of the Chief Engineer (Public
Health) Department, HMWS&SB and Secretariat attended. The Petitioner, however, did
not attend the Hearing.
The Deputy Chief Engineer, Public Health stated that initially 48 posts were
calculated for the Projects and the Special Office of HMWS&SB shown against Public Health
Engineering Department notified under GSRs in the Presidential Order. According to the
Fair Share formula prescribed in Para 9 (B) of G.O.P. No.728, GA (SPF.A) Department,
dated 01.11.1975 these 48 posts were apportioned among all the zones including the City
Cadre (which he calls Zone-VII). The DEEs were posted in that proportion. Presently
there are only 26 DEEs from other zones in the Department against 48 posts in the
Projects and Special Office. The total number of posts in the Department is 82. Whether
deputationists from other zones are posted in the Department or the Projects is not known
to the Public Health Engineering Department.
The Deputy Chief Engineer has agreed that all the Projects including those notified
in the Presidential Order against Public Health Engineering Department under GSR 525 (E)
Manjeera Water Supply Scheme, Second Phase and Remodeling of Water Distribution
System in the twin cities have been completed long time ago, though not notified as
completed. They are under maintenance phase. However, the deputations are being
made as if Projects exist. In spite of Projects being completed the 48 Project posts have
not been disbanded by the Department and are being utilised in the HMWS&SB. The
Special Office under GSR 526 (E) Maneru Investigation Circle is also closed down.
As per the copy of the Letter No.1235/CS3/94, dated 02.09.1996 of the Engineer-
in-Chief, Public Health addressed to the Principal Secretary to the Government, MA&UD
Department, the status of the Major Development Projects and the Special Office /
Establishment of HMWS&SB is as follows:
1. The Manjeera Water Supply Scheme Phase-II: (Sl.No.11/GSR 525 (E).
It was completed and commissioned in July 1981.
2. Remodeling of Water Supply Distribution Scheme: (Sl.No.14/GSR 525 (E)
Sanctioned in the year 1971-72 and was completed in the year 1982.
3. Maneru Investigation Circle: (Sl.No.27/GSR 526 (E)
Sanctioned in the year 1979 and was closed on 31.10.1984.
Having heard the case and on going through the record the Commission holds that
the posts of AEEs and DEEs that have, from time to time ceased to be utilised for Projects
works, should not have been treated as Project Posts right from the actual time when they
ceased to be used for Project works. But, ever since, they have been diverted, de-facto,
on ground, to regular department for regulatory and maintenance work. From that time
onwards they ceased to fall under the purview of the item (e) of Para-14 of the
Presidential Order and ceased to be excluded from the purview of the Presidential Order.
But, the Engineer-in-Chief has been treating them wrongly as Project posts and sending
incumbents from other zones on deputation to these posts.
In the instant case of the HMWS&SB, the two Major Development Projects and the
Special Office/Establishment have been completed long ago. Hence, it is irrelevant
whether such Projects have not been formally notified as completed for various technical
and financial considerations. The rationale is that, where any post ceases to be utilised for
the Projects work and is diverted to the regular department for utilisation on departmental
functions, like regulatory or maintenance work, it cannot be treated as a Project post,
under item (e) of Para 14 of the Presidential Order. Hence, the moment of a post ceased
to be utilised actually and de-facto on ground on Project work it should have been included
in the localization scheme of the department, as otherwise the local candidates will be
deprived of their rightful opportunities of zonal seniorities and promotions and
consequential concomitant benefits.
In the circumstance, it is hereby held that the Department has to work out and
review retrospectively from the date of completion of each Project and calculate how many
non-local AEEs & DEEs have worked there since that date and retrospectively calculate the
seniority and promotions lost by the local AEEs and DEEs of the concerned local area, City
Cadre or VI Zone, as the case may be. The Department should take action to restore to
those deprived incumbents their wrongfully lost seniorities and promotions; similarly, the
wrongfully gained seniorities and promotions of the incumbents from other zones would
have to be reworked out retrospectively and revised accordingly; including that of the
Petitioner Sri Y.R. Sathi Reddy.
(J.M. GIRGLANI)
To
The Principal Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department.
The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad.
The Managing Director, HMWS&SB, Hyderabad.
Copy to:
Sri Y.R. Sathi Reddy, Executive Engineer, Cuddapah Municipality, Cuddapah.
SF/SC.
Sd/-
SECTION OFFICER

ONE MAN COMMISSION-SIX POINT FORMULA-ANDHRA PRADESH-HEADED BY Mr. J.M. GIRGLANI, IAS (Retd.) Vol II

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ONE MAN COMMISSION-SIX POINT FORMULA-ANDHRA PRADESH-HEADED BY Mr. J.M. GIRGLANI, IAS (Retd.) Vol II

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

ONE MAN COMMISSION

J.M. GIRGLANI, IAS (Retd.)

IMPLEMENTATION OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDER

APPENDICES, ANNEXURES AND PROCEEDINGS

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SPF) DEPARTMENT

APPENDICES 5-25 Pages

ANNEXURES 26-84 Pages

PROCEEDINGS 85-243 Pages

No Appendix Page Nos.

I G.O.Ms.No.610, G.A(SPF-A) Dept.,Dt.30.12.1985 5-7

II G.O.Ms.No.270,G.A(SPF-A) Dept., Dt.25.06.2001 8-9

III G.O.Ms.No.327,G.A(SPF-A) Dept., Dt.22.07.2002 10

IV G.O.Rt.No.2755,G.A(SPF-A) Dept.,Dt.17.06.2003 11-12

VI One Man Commission Letter No.06/86/OMC(A1)/

VII Note from Secretary (Services),G.A.D addressed

VIII One Man Commission D.O.Lr.No.6169/OMC/A/

IX Government of India, Gazette No.902, New Delhi,

X Statistics on Compassionate Appointments 25

XI Statistics on pending Applications for

XII Statistics on 10 (a) (i) Appointments 25

XII-A Statistics on Deputations 25

XII-B Statistics on „State Level Institutions‟ 25

SIX POINT FORMULA – Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SPF-A) DEPARTMENT

G.O.Ms.No.610 Dated the 30-12-1985

1. G.O.Ms.No.674, G. A. (SPF-A) Dept., dated 20-10-1975.

2. In accordance with the provisions of the Presidential Order, local cadres

3. In the representation 4th cited, the President, Telangana Non-Gazetted

4. The Government after carefully examining the issues raised in the

5. As per the terms of agreement the following orders are issued:

(1) The employees allotted after 18-10-1975 to Zones V & VI in violation

(2) In respect of Jurala, Srisailam Left Canal and Sriramsagar Project

(b) As a result of the above exercise, consequential vacancies if

(4) In respect of first level Gazetted posts in certain Departments which

(5) The posts in Institutions/Establishment notified in G.S.R. No.526 (E)

(7) Action will be initiated in the concerned departments in cases brought

(8) On receipt of complaints, if any, made by the TNGOs Union relating to

such measures as may be necessary to rectify the irregular

(10) The T.N.G.Os Union will furnish to Government the service/

(11) The Departments of Secretariat shall complete the review of

(b) In respect of former Junior Engineers (Presently Asst.E.Es) the

(13) The matter relating to allotment of 7 non-local personnel in the cadre

(14) The question of repatriation of 13 Deputy Executive Engineers of the

(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SPF-A) DEPARTMENT

G.O.Ms.No.270 Dated the 25th June, 2001

G.O.Ms.No.610, General Administration (SPF-A) Department,

Government have been receiving certain representations regarding

2. The Commission will receive representations from Association / individuals

6. All Departments of Secretariat shall provide the required information and

(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SPF-A) DEPARTMENT

1. G.O.Ms.No.610, General Administration (SPF-A) Department,

2. Considering the work to be done by the „One Man Commission‟, Government

(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)

D. MURALI KRISHNA, IAS.,

Dharamkaram Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

//TRUE COPY// Appendix-IV

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SPF-A) DEPARTMENT

G.O.Rt.No.2755 Dated the 17-06-2003

1. G.O.Ms.No.610, General Administration (SPF-A) Department,

In continuation of the orders issued in G.O. 5th read above, Government