Allowed

P Bhupathi v. Govermment of A.P

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Aug 2019WP/10655/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of two writ petitions filed by Second Grade Teachers challenging their exclusion from a promotion list due to a prior relinquishment of promotion rights. Quashing previous exclusion, the court held that prior relinquishment does not permanently bar future promotion eligibility under Article 16(1).

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider and include petitioners' names in the promotion list if they are otherwise eligible.

P Bhupathi Vs Govermment of A.P — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION Nos. 10655 and 10667 of 2019

¶2

COMMON ORDER:-

¶3

In both the writ petitions, the facts are identical and the reliefs claimed by both the petitioners are also similar. Therefore, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

¶4

Learned Government Pleader for Services takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services.

¶6

The petitioners in both the writ petitions are presently working as Second Grade Teacher (Regular) in the Departments of Biology and Social respectively. It appears that earlier, both the petitioners have relinquished their right of promotion. The respondents have now prepared a final list of eligible candidates to be considered for promotion to the next higher post of School Assistant (Biology/Social)/LFC Head Master. The names of the petitioners are not considered as eligible candidates for promotion and their names were not included in the said list, only on the ground that they have earlier relinquished their right of promotion.

¶7

So, the short question that is involved in these two writ petitions is, whether the relinquishment of right of promotion on an earlier occasion disentitles the petitioners from being considered for promotion on the subsequent occasion or not?

¶8

¶9

The legal position in this regard is not res integra and the same has been decided by a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in G. Boyanna Vs. Registrar (Administration)¹ , wherein it is held at paragraph No.24 as follows:

¶10

“In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that right or privilege of promotion to a particular vacancy would amount to permanent relinquishment of right of privilege for promotion to that particular vacancy. The Rule-28 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules cannot be read or interpreted to mean that his right to be considered for promotion to any vacancy arising in future also is permanently extinguished. Such an interpretation would lead to frustration and unrest in the service defeating the object of promoting efficiency and harmonious functioning…..”

¶11

It is further held as follows:

¶12

“The learned Division Bench earlier expressed its complete agreement with the above interpretation of the Rule and pointing out the fact that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, it was held that Rule 28 of the Rules of 1996 did not disentitle a member of a service from being considered for promotion in a future vacancy merely because he had relinquished his right for promotion earlier.”

¶13

In the light of the law enunciated in the above judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the legal position is very clear that the mere fact that the petitioners herein have earlier relinquished their right of promotion cannot be a valid ground to disentitle them to be considered for promotion in future vacancy, subsequently.

¶14

In view of the above law, both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the names of the petitioners also for promotion and include their names also in the list prepared relating to eligible candidates to be considered for

¶15

1 (2009) 2 ALD 402 (DB)

¶16

¶17

promotion, if they are otherwise found eligible for promotion.

¶18

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these

¶20

writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶21

______________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J 5^th August, 2019 Note: Issue C.C. in two (2) days. (b/o) cbs

¶22

¶23

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶24

WRIT PETITION Nos. 10655 & 10667 OF 2019

¶25

¶26

5^th August, 2019

¶27

cbs

P Bhupathi v. Govermment of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Bhupathi v. Govermment of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veeraiah and Anr. Vs State of a.P., through Mahila P.S. and Anr.

Bada Ramadasu Vs Duvvada Prabhakar Chodary (Died)

Bada Ramadasu Vs Duvvada Prabhakar Chowdary (Died)

Smt. E.Jaya Lakshmi Vs Government of A.P

A Ramakrishna Vs the State of Ap

Sri. a. Raghunatha Reddy Vs the State of Ap