Partly allowed

M.S.V. Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Sept 2022WP/3632/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning promotion rights under the SC quota, the Supreme Court observed that existing vacancies for the Dy. D.E.M.O post should be filled. The petitioner, a Health Educator, filed a petition seeking promotion to the post of Deputy District Extension and Media Officer (Dy. D.E.M.O) in the Scheduled Caste quota. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's ca

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's case for promotion to Dy. D.E.M.O post in SC quota in existing vacancies and pass appropriate orders as per rules.

M.S.V. Prasad Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3632 of 2022

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India for the following relief:-

¶6

“…to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy D E M O in the S C quota in terms of G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 30.07.2018 by declaring the proc Rc No 2172/E4.C/2020 dated 27.01.2021 communicated on 02.08.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal bad and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy D E M O in the S C quota in the existing vacancies and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court deem fit and pass such other order or orders … …. ”

¶7

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed

¶8

as Health Assistant on 6.9.1995 and promoted as Health Educator on 4.5.2006. He is fully eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Dy. District Extension and Media Officer (Dy. D.E.M.O) in S.C. Quota at 16^th Roster point. The cadre strength of Dy. DEMO post in Zone-1 is ‘6’ posts and as per G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 9.1.2004 and G.O.Ms.No.154, dated 30.07.2008 rule of reservation is

¶9

¶10

applicable in promotion and out of the ‘6’ posts, ‘3’ posts are vacant. It is further stated that for the panel year of 201819 when the petitioner became eligible under S.C Quota, it was filled up by S. Ramana Rao – B.C(D) candidate vide proceedings dated 17,11.2018 issued by the 3^rd respondent. Later, I made a representation dated 1.9.2018 and 27.2.2019 to the 3^rd respondent to rectify this mistake and consider his candidature for promotion to the post of Dy. D.E.M.O. under SC quota. Accordingly, the 3^rd respondent

¶11

has issued proceedings dated 3.6.2019 informed that the petitioner case will be considered when vacancy caused due to retirement or promotion in future as per the provisions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 30.7.2018. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent has promoted one Smt P.Ratna Kuamri, who belongs to SC category as Health Education and Extension Officer from the post of Dy. D.E.M.O vide proceedings dated 8.11.2021 and she was relieved on 9.11.2021. As the said vacancy has arisen, the respondents ought to have considered his case for promotion to the post of Dy. D.E.M.O. as per letter issued by the 3^rd respondent

¶12

¶13

dated 3.6.2019. However, the respondents have not considered his case.

¶14

In pursuance of the same, the petitioner preferred W.P.no.28846 of 2021 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 16.12.2021 in I.A. No.1 of 2021 in W.P. No.28846 of 2021 granted interim direction directed the 2^nd respondent therein to take necessary action on the representation dated 10.11.2021 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of six weeks. Accordingly, the 3^rd respondent issued speaking orders vide Rc.No.1091/A2/2021 dated 4.1.2022 stating that the petitioner case shall be considered for promotion as per seniority duly observing Roster points to the post of Dy. D.E.M.O., vacancy caused due to retirement or promotion in future as per the provisions laid down in government Orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.154, dated 30.07.2018. In view of the above, the petitioner has withdrawn the said W.P.No.28846 of 2021 on 21.01.2022.

¶15

During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed I.A No.2 of 2022 seeking to amend the prayer in the main writ petition and the same was allowed by this Court

¶16

¶17

vide order dated 16.08.2022 and the prayer is amended as under:

¶18

“……. Directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy.D.E.M.O in the S.C quota in terms of G.O.Ms.No.154, dated 30.07.2018 by declaring the proc. Rc.No.2172/E4.C/2020 dated 27.01.2021 (communicated on 02.08.2022) issued by the 2^nd respondent as illegal, bad and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy. D.E.M.O in the S.C quota in the existing vacancies and pass such other..…..”

¶19

Heard Mr. J.R. Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for the respondents.

¶20

On hearing, this Court observed that, as per G.O.Ms.No.154, Social Welfare (ROR1) Department, dated 30.07.2008, wherein it is mentioned that, The Government after careful examination of the matter, hereby decided to amend suitably to Pragaraph 5 of G.O.Ms.No.2 SW (ROR1) Department, dated 09.01.2004, so as to enable to take into consideration the vacancies which may arise in the panel year besides the existing vacancies of SC/ST candidates as on 1^st September. It is also mentioned that To Paragraph 5

¶21

¶22

of G.O.Ms.No.2 Social Welfare (ROR1) Department dated 09.01.2004, the following ‘Note’ shall be added namely :

¶23

“While preparing panels for giving effect the rule of reservation in promotions, the existing vacancies of SC/ST candidates and those which may arise in the panel year shall also be taken into consideration for including those candidates in the panel for achieving their adequate representation. The rule 6(b), d(i) & (ii) (1)(2) and (e ) of the A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 shall be followed scrupulously.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Director of Public Health and Family Welfare issued proceedings vide ProcRc.No.2172/E4.C/2020, dated 27.01.2021 (communicated on 02.08.2022) rejecting the case of the petitioner for promotion on the ground that the roaster point start from 17, 18 and 19 which are general and on that ground his case was rejected. As seen from the proceedings dated 27.01.2021 issued by the 2^nd respondent, it is mentioned that “since the adequacy already fulfilled as Smt. P. Ratna Kumar, Dy. D.E.M.O (SC) was already working and recently Smt P.Ratna Kuamr, Dy. D.E.M.O (SC)

¶25

has been promoted to the post of HEEO and posted to RTC(M), Visakhpaatam and joined duties as HEEO on

¶26

¶27

9.11.2021, so there is one (1) SC shortage in the Dy. D.E.M.O posts w.e.f. 10.11.2021 onwards. So one S.C candidate has to be promoted as Dy. D.E.M.O. from the Health Educator but presently 3 posts Dy.D.E.M.Os are vacant due to promotions to the posts of H.E.E.O from the feeder category of Dy. D.E.M.Os, and presently the roster points start from 17, 18, 19 which are general and SC (W) roster point will come in 22 SC(W) point in future. In view of the above, learned counsel requests this Court to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy.D.E.M.O. in the SC quota in the existing vacancies and pass appropriate orders.

¶28

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as the adequacy already fulfilled, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy. D.E.M.O in the existing vacancy and pass appropriate orders as per rules in force.

¶29

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶30

¶31

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending,

¶32

shall stand closed.

¶33

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

¶34

Date : 27 -09-2022 Gvl

¶35

¶36

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶37

WRIT PETITION No.3632 of 2022

¶38

Date : 27 .09.2022

¶39

Gvl

M.S.V. Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.V. Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.Giridhara Rao, Vs The District Collector Cum Chairman

G.L. Nagabushanam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gumpula Ruth Evangeline Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Kanakaratnam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Chittoor District Co-operative Central Bank Retired Employees Welfare Association, Vs The Chittoor District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd.

K Ravi Sankar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh