Writ Petition at the instance of State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Principal Secretary, School Education Department and others is to the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3347 of 2010 allowing the petition filed by the 1st respondent/applicant and directing the Government to grant notional promotion to the applicant as School Assistant from 31.08.1982 the date on which his junior i.e., 4 th respondent was promoted with all consequential benefits and pass appropriate order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WEDNESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRSENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

WRIT PETITION NO: 1869 OF 2011

Between:

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary

School Education Department

Secretarait, Hyderabad

2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education Government of

Andhra Pradesh, Hydearbad

3. The District Educational Officer, Government of A.P., Machilipatnam,

Krishna District

...PETITIONER(S)

AND:

1. M. Bala Krishna Murthy s/o. M. Ramanaiah

School Assistant ( Social ), SRRZP High School ( boys)

R/o. D.No. 6-146, Samatha Nagar,

Nuzivid, Krishna District

4. Mr. B.J. Santhi Babu S/o.B. venkateswara Rao

MEO, government of A.P.,

Machiliaptnam Rural Mandal,

Krishna District

5. The hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Rep. by its Registrar,

Purani Haveli, Hyderabad

( RR2 is a formal party as no relief a sought against them )

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): GP FOR SERVICES III

Counsel for the Respondents: V R REDDY

The Court made the following: ORDER

2023:APHC:2678

HON’BL SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

W.P.No.1869 OF 2011

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao)

 The challenge in this Writ Petition at the instance of State of

Andhra Pradesh represented by the Principal Secretary, School

Education Department and others is to the order dated 06.10.2010

passed by A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3347 of 2010

allowing the petition filed by the 1st respondent/applicant and

directing the Government to grant notional promotion to the applicant

as School Assistant from 31.08.1982 the date on which his junior i.e.,

4

th respondent was promoted with all consequential benefits and pass

appropriate order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt

of the order.

2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-III and learned

counsel for respondent No.1 Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri.

3. The factual matrix of this case in narrow compass is that the

grievance of the 4th respondent herein is that on several applications

2023:APHC:2678

2

and representations from 10.03.1981 onwards made by him, at last

the petitioners herein have promoted him as School Assistant w.e.f.

14.10.1996, whereas the 4th respondent herein who is lower in rank

and appointed subsequent to the petitioner was, however, granted

promotion as B.Ed. Assistant i.e., School Assistant w.e.f. 31.08.1982

and therefore on parity basis the case of applicant shall be considered

for fixing seniority and consequential promotions from the date on

which his junior Sri B.J.Shanti Babu/4th respondent herein was

granted promotion as School Assistant. His representations and

applications were discarded by the authorities on the ground that they

were belated and time barred. Hence, 4th respondent herein filed

O.A.No.3347 of 2010 and the Tribunal having considered that

admittedly the 4th respondent/applicant was senior in rank and

appointed earlier than Sri B.J.Shanti Babu as Secondary Grade

Assistant and that he was making unsuccessful representations since

10.03.1991 and as such his request cannot be jettisoned as belated,

held that the 4th respondent/applicant is entitled for notional

promotion on par with his junior Sri B.J.Shanti Babu who was

promoted on 10.08.1982. The Tribunal accordingly directed the

2023:APHC:2678

3

authorities to grant necessary promotion to the 1st

respondent/applicant as School Assistant from the date on which his

junior i.e., 4th respondent was promoted with all consequential

benefits.

4. As can be seen, two admitted points weighed with the Tribunal

to pass the order in favour of 1st respondent/applicant. Firstly, that the

1

st respondent/applicant is senior to Sri B.J.Shanti Babu/4th

respondent but he was promoted as School Assistant on 10.08.1982,

much earlier to the applicant. Secondly, according to the 1st

respondent/applicant, after his initial appointment as Secondary

Grade Assistant on 01.02.1979 and after declaration of probation

w.e.f. 31.01.1981, he was making representations seeking promotion

as B.Ed. Assistant (Social Studies) in the vacant posts. In fact he

made representation dated 10.03.1981 and thereafter also he made

several representations. The respondents in the O.A. did not deny the

said fact and therefore the Tribunal held that the applicant was

making representations since 1981 but without passing any orders on

his applications, the respondents now seeks to argue that his request

was badly delayed and cannot be considered.

2023:APHC:2678

4

 Basing on the above observations, the Tribunal allowed the

O.A. and set aside the impugned proceedings and directed the

authorities to grant notional promotion to the applicant as School

Assistant and with all consequential benefits with effect from the date

on which his junior i.e., 4th respondent was promoted as School

Assistant.

5. Having heard the matter, perused the order impugned, we find

no illegality or irregularity therein. When the 1st respondent herein is

admittedly senior to the 4th respondent in the selection rank as well as

on date of appointment, there is no law or logic in granting promotion

to the 4th respondent as School Assistant in the year 1982 but denying

the promotion to the 1st respondent. It is nobody’s case that during the

relevant period when 4th respondent was promoted as School

Assistant, the 1st respondent was facing any departmental enquiry or

undergoing any punishment rendering himself ineligible for

promotion. Therefore, the act of Writ Petitioners in not conferring the

benefit of promotion to the 1st respondent in the year 1982 either prior

or along with 4th respondent is a clear discrimination among the

equals which is unjust and illegal. Then the faint and preposterous

2023:APHC:2678

5

argument of the petitioners that the request of the 1st respondent

seeking promotion was a belated one is concerned, it has no legs to

stand, in as much as, immediately after declaration of his probation

w.e.f. 31.01.1981, the 1st respondent had started making

representations seeking promotion as B.Ed. Assistant (Social Studies)

in the vacant posts. He made a representation on 10.03.1981 which

was not disputed by the petitioners. It is only after successive

representations, at last he was promoted as School Assistant on

14.10.1996. Therefore, his request cannot be said to be a belated or a

time barred one. The judgment in B.S.Bajwa and others Vs. State of

Punjab and others1

 relied upon by the petitioners can be

distinguished on facts. In that case the petitioners having fully known

that their juniors were promoted before them kept silent at least for a

decade and then made representations, which were ultimately turned

down by the authorities. Hon’ble Apex Court found fault with the

delayed attitude of the petitioners and held as follows:

7. xxxx “The undisputed facts appearing from the record are alone

sufficient to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of latches

because the grievance made by B.S.Bajwa and B.D.Gupta only in

1984 which was long after they had entered the department in

1971-72. During this entire period of more than a decade they

1

 (1998) 2 SCC 523

2023:APHC:2678

6

were all along treated as junior to the other aforesaid persons and

the rights inter se had crystallized which ought not to have been

re-opened after the lapse of such a long period. At every stage the

others were promoted before B.S.Bajwa and B.D.Gupta and this

position was known to B.S.Bajwa and B.D.Gupta right from the

beginning as found by the Division Bench itself. It is well settled

that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period

because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not

justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for

making such a grievance. This alone was sufficient to decline

interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition.”

6. However, the facts in our case are different and the 1st

respondent cannot be criticized that he belatedly applied for

promotion.

7. We find no merits in the petitioners’ case and the Writ Petition

is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_________________________

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

__________________________

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J

01.02.2023

NNN

2023:APHC:2678

7

HON’BL SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

W.P.No.1869 OF 2011

01.02.2023

NNN

2023:APHC:2678