Allowed

Ch.Suryanarayana Murthy, v. The Commissioner Of Collegiate Education Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Oct 2019WP/15372/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposes of a writ petition seeking a direction to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent after it fell vacant following his earlier relinquishment of promotion. The court directs respondents to consider the name per applicable rules.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the petitioner's name for promotion to the post of Superintendent.

Ch.Suryanarayana Murthy, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.15372 OF 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent, which has fallen vacant subsequent to the petitioner relinquishing his promotion earlier.

¶5

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

¶6

The counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, this Court in W.P. No.8320 of 2019, by relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in M.V.R.L.S. Ravikanth vs. State of Andhra Pradesh¹ which observed at paragraph No.14 as follows:

¶7

“ … the Tribunal therein has interpreted the Rules 28 and 11(b) of the A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and held that that the petitioner cannot be considered for promotion for the third time since he has failed to join his promotion post twice within fifteen days and ultimately came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to be offered promotion for third time, which is illegal and arbitrary. It also relied on the two decisions in W.P.No.26654 of 2005 (The District Educational Officer, Kurnool v. Shahnaz Begum) and G.Boyanna v. Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P., (2009(2) ALD 402 (DB), and also held that mere fact that the petitioner sought reversion earlier on personal grounds did not disentitle him

¶8

1 W.P. No.13624 of 2015, dated 02.6.2017.

¶9

¶10

from being considered for promotion thereafter. Rule 28 of the A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules does not have the effect of extinguishing the right of the petitioner to be considered for promotion permanently.”

¶11

Hence, going by the spirit of the decisions cited above, the respondents are directed to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent, which has fallen vacant subsequent to the petitioner relinquishing his promotion earlier, in accordance with the relevant Rules.

¶12

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶13

_________________ SMT T. RAJANI, J

¶14

October 14, 2019. YS

Ch.Suryanarayana Murthy, v. The Commissioner Of Collegiate Education Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Suryanarayana Murthy, v. The Commissioner Of Collegiate Education Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mobina Mohammed Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch.v.v.S,Bapi Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Apstate Drda Empl Welfare Union and 2 Oth Vs Spl Chief Secty,P.Raj and Rd Dept and Anothe

G.Sivannarayana Vs The State of A.P

Potnuru Venkata Ramana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.P. Srinivasulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh