The government’s decision to appoint village revenue assistants (VRAs) as junior assistants and other lower cadre positions in the government departments has been struck down by the Telangana High Court which directed the State government to maintain status quo on the issue.
Justice P Madhavi Devi suspended the two government orders, GO 81 issued by the Principal Secretary, Revenue and GO 85 issued under the name of the Special Chief Secretary, Finance. She was responding to writ petitions filed by employees of the Revenue department working at various levels who questioned the modalities of the absorption and the procedures involved in it.
The petititoners included Shadab Hakim, a tahsildar from the office of the Collector in Jagtial district, Guddola Bhoomanna and five others, who are village revenue officers (VROs) from Nizamabad and Kurisenga Adithya, along with 29 other office subordinates.
The contention of the petitioners was that while issuing the GOs no norms were followed by the government, including the established procedures and the earlier Cabinet decisions in the appointments. They also contended that VRAs appointment to positions outside the original department was not acceptable and in violation.
The counsels on behalf of the petitioners, P.V. Krishnaiah and Sriram Polali, argued that there was no provision for the creation of new or supernumerary posts and that the GOs issued were in total violation of the existing service rules and Constitutional provisions. The absorption of VRAs into other departments would hamper the existing employees’ chances in promotion and also the process of filling up the vacancies.
The counsels also referred to the violation of Telangana Ministerial Service Rules and the existing government orders if the VRAs were appointed or promoted as junior assistants.
The Government counsel however rejected the contention of the petitioners and said that the petitioners, as government servants, don’t have the right to comment on the government’s decisions. He also argued that there would be no adverse impact on the office subordinates if the VRAs were absorbed into various other departments.
After hearing the arguments, Justice Madhavi Devi questioned the government’s authority to absorb individuals based on policy decisions. She further raised questions on eligibility criteria, selection process, qualifications and the alleged differential treatment extended to VROs and VRAs. The court also wanted to know the vacancies in the Revenue department while absorbing the VRAs into other departments.
The Judge also sought clarification from the government counsel on how the government had been claiming that there were no vacancies in the Revenue department but still wanted to absorb half of the VRAs.
Later, she passed orders suspending the implementation of GO 81 and GO 85 that paved the way for the absorption of VRAs into other departments. It means the VRAs will not be considered as government employees.
