Telangana, AP bifurcation: Judicial officers want fair divide

DECCAN CHRONICLE. | S A ISHAQUI

Published May 15, 2016, 2:51 am IST

Updated May 15, 2016, 3:08 am IST

Telangana judicial officers say that the provisional list was prepared based on majority opinion.

 Now judicial officers have decided to protest against their allocations. (Representational image)

Hyderabad: For the first time in the history of the judiciary of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana state, TS subordinate judicial officers have resolved to take up a massive agitation against the allocation of subordinate judicial officers between the two Telugu states.
After the bifurcation Andhra Pradesh, the allocations of All India Service Officers, employees of universities and power utilities of both states landed in legal tangles. Now judicial officers have decided to protest against their allocations.
Sources close to the Telangana Judicial Officers Association said that juridical officers had decided go on mass casual leave if the registry refuses to prepare a fresh list as the present allocation is contrary to the guidelines issued by the High Court on February 26, 2016 and to Sections 77 to 79 of the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014.

Telangana AP bifurcation (Infographics)

They also resolved to express their dissatisfaction against the allocation by wearing black badges during lunch hours from June 3 in front of their respective courts. The association has authorised the executive committee to decide on the date to go on the mass casual leave.
The Telangana judicial officers say that the provisional list was prepared based on majority opinion in a full court meeting held on April 30, 2016 ignoring the guidelines and the provisions of the Act.
They are of the opinion that the surplus allocation of non-local candidates in the state will hamper the chances of the younger generation of TS aspirants to enter judicial service as vacancies will arise only after five to six years if this provisional allocation is allowed.
Sources revealed that the main contention of the judicial officers was that no Act, statue, rule or guideline permitted the High Court to allocate purely on the basis of options without regard to their place of birth or nativity.
They are of the opinion that the allotment appeared to be an arithmetic exercise, not scientifically done either on the basis of 60:40 or 48: 52 ratios as specified in the bifurcation Act.
They point out that the first guideline of the High Court is: “The allocation shall be done in the order of seniority as available on June 2, 2014. Preference shall be given first to those who have opted for the state in which the district declared by them at the time of entering into service.”
The third guideline specifies: “If still there are vacancies in one state and officers are found to be in surplus in another state, they shall be allotted to either of the states at the discretion of the Chief Justice.”