Telangana HC stays GOs to adjust VRAs as junior assistants

The state government faced a huge backlash in the Telangana High Court on Thursday for recognising village revenue assistants (VRAs) as government employees and appointing them as junior assistants in various departments.

Justice P. Madhavi Devi issued orders suspending GOs 81 and 85 dated July 24 and August 3, respectively, which merged VRAs with the government staff and adjusting them into various departments. The court also made it clear that the position of 16,758 VRAs should be maintained as a position before the issuance of the said GOs.

Following this ruling, the appointment letters given to VRAs have become null and void.

The court opined that the government and its authorities unscrupulously went ahead in issuing such GOs, which also violated provisions of public employment rules and government services rules.

The judge was dealing with a batch of petitions challenging the two GOs. Sub-ordinate staff working in various departments had filed the petition challenging the decision of the government to transfer VRAs as junior assistants. They said that junior assistant posts must be filled by them (the petitioners) but the government was not considering their representation seeking promotion that was overdue.

Another petition was filed by some village revenue officers, challenging the decision to



continue only 50 per cent of VRAs in the revenue department. They wanted the government to continue them in the revenue department as junior assistants.

The court asked the government on what grounds could VRAs be accommodated as government staff without exercising Public Employment Code procedures.

Advocates P.V. Krishnaiah and Sriram Polali arguing for the petitioners, said, "According to the Public Employment Act, there is a prescribed process to create a government post. Appointment of VRAs as junior assistants was done without following the law. Amending service rules is invalid."

Krishnaiah contended that the decision was taken for purely political gains. He argued that the appointment of Naveen Mittal as revenue secretary and CCLA, under whose guidelines and supervision, the said process was completed, is itself invalid.

The counsels argued that though Mittal is at rank 19 in civil servants seniority quota, the government appointed him as CCLA, while sidelining his seniors. As his thanksgiving gesture, he issued proceedings against the rules in this case, he said.

However, the court did not accept arraying the Chief Minister and the election commission as respondents. The court also raised an objection on arraying Mittal as a respondent in his personal capacity.