Subsequent Policy Change Can't Divest Employee Of Accrued Promotion Rights: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an administrative decision by which an employee is granted a benefit or a status becomes vested when such a grant is acted upon and the same cannot be nullified by subsequent administrative modification or withdrawal of policy.Justice Subba Reddy Satti explained,“Once an employee is granted a benefit or status pursuant to a valid administrative decision and such a grant is acted upon, the right so created crystallises and becomes vested. A vested right cannot be divested or nullified by a subsequent administrative modification, withdrawal of policy, or reconsideration by the employer. While the employer may have the authority to revise or rescind administrative decisions, such power is inherently prospective and cannot be exercised to unsettle completed transactions or to retrospectively deprive an employee of rights already accrued.”The ruling came in a a writ petition whereby the petitioner was initially appointed as Matron in S.V. Balamandir in 1999 under the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, 1989 (1989 Rules). As the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD) treated posts of Matron and Secondary Grade Assistant as interchangeable, the petitioner was placed in the Secondary Grade Assistant vide a Resolution of 2004. Later, as the petitioner acquired a postgraduate degree in Chemistry and possessed all requisite qualifications required for the post of Junior Lecturer, he was recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee and consequently promoted and appointed as Junior Lecturer in 2009 in Chemistry under 'non-teaching category' in SV Junior College, which was later approved by the Board of Intermediate Education in 2010. However, in 2013, when other staff sought promotions in similar capacity, TTD withdrew the Resolution of 2004 and subsequently issued show-cause notice to the petitioner to revert him to post of Matron. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the withdrawal of the 2004 resolution and the show-cause notice.In his writ petition, the petitioner argued that the show-cause notice was contrary to the service rules and the issuing authority—-Deputy Executive Officer (Services), TTD lacked jurisdiction to do so. He also argued that the petitioner's promotion to the post of junior lecturer was done as per the Government Orders issued by the State Government and the petitioner was selected by a Committee which was ratified by the Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education.Justifying the show-cause notice, the respondents claimed that consequent to the petitioner's promotion, several TTD employees submitted representations requesting promotions in a similar capacity, claiming parity with the petitioner. It was submitted that the post of Matron was a special post sanctioned exclusively for S.V. Balamandir, and was essentially a non-teaching post, and therefore does not fall within the cadres specified by the Government in its guidelines of 2010— which govern promotion to the post of junior lecturer from a non-teaching post. It was also submitted that S.V. Balamandir is a charitable institution and an orphanage and not an educational institution, and the 2004 resolution has no legal sanctity as it was passed without amending the Rules of 1989.On the question whether S.V. Balamandir is not an educational institution but a charitable institution, the Court referred to Section 2(18) of the A.P. Education Act, 1982— which defines an “educational institution" as—- a recognised school, college—including Medical College, special institution or other institution (including an orphanage or boarding home or hostel attached to it), the management of which carries on either exclusively or the activity of imparting education, but does not include a tutorial institution. In light of this provision, the Court held,“In the definition, extracted supra, orphanage and boarding home or hostel attached to it are part of educational institutions. Thus, the contention of the learned standing counsel that S.V.Balamandir cannot be termed as an educational institution, this court is not persuaded. Even going by the contention of the learned standing counsel that S.V.Balamandir is an orphanage, it is still an educational institution.”Thereafter, with respect to the contention of the petitioner that the Deputy Executive Officer of TTD did not possess requisite jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice, the Court noted that it was the TTD authorities which promoted the petitioner to the post of Junior Lecturer by following the procedure prescribed by the State Government. Thus, it was held,“… the supervisory authority for all purposes, in the opinion of this Court, is TTD Devasthanams, since the college is under the control of TTD. In case of any punitive action, even the supervisory authority needs to adhere to Section 79 of the A.P. Education Act. The contention of learned senior counsel that the show cause notice dated 12.12.2013 (Ex.P2) ...

Subsequent Policy Change Can't Divest Employee Of Accrued Promotion Rights: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Subsequent Policy Change Can't Divest Employee Of Accrued Promotion Rights: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers