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
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.