Disposed

A. Nagaraju, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Dec 2022WP/636/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition challenging inaction on promotion, the High Court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's case for the post of Superintendent in the next selection, subject to the pendency of the pending appeal against the imposed punishment of Censure.

What did the court decide?

Directed authorities to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to Superintendent in the next selection, subject to the pending appeal.

A. Nagaraju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.636 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s:

¶5

".....to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mndamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent in not promoting the petitioner to the post of Superintendent on par with unofficial respondent and same may be declared as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Superintendent with all consequential benefits, and to pass such other order or orders....

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶7

Government Pleader for Endowments and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶8

The present Writ Petition is filed for not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion on par with his junior employees. He was initially appointed as attender on 16.08.1989, consequently he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant vide proceedings RC A1/935/2004-2/Estt. dated 12.01.2005. Later he was also promoted to the post of Senior Assistant vide proceedings in RC No.A2/150/2010 dated 30.11.2010.

¶9

¶10

It is the case of the petitioner despite discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the devotees and higher officials without any stigma whatsoever. As per the provisional seniority list in the cadre of Junior Assistant for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, vide RC No.A2/741/2008, dated 28.04.2009 his name was shown at Sl.No.5 and the name of unofficial respondent shown at serial no.7. Whereas in the provisional seniority list vide RC No.A2/150/2010 dated 13.09.2010, his name was shown at serial no.3 and the unofficial respondent is shown at Sl.No.4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is senior to the unofficial respondent inspite of that the petitioner was not given promotion to the post of Superintendent where there are 3 sanctioned posts, two for temple employees, one post is Foreign Service (FS). It is the contention of the petitioner herein that he is senior to the unofficial respondent. Therefore, he prayed to direct the respondents herein to consider his case for promotion to the post of Superintendent.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that a charge memo was issued, an enquiry was conducted and two charges were proved against the petitioner and an order of "Censure" was imposed by way of punishment against the

¶12

¶13

petitioner by the Executive Officer in exercise of the powers vested under Section 37(1) of the Act 30/87 and Rules made there under G.O.Ms.No.830Rev./(Endts.1)Dept./dt.18.08.1989. The punishment awarded to the petitioner on 04.09.2014. The promotion was effected on 23.11.2015 by the date when the promotion was effected, the petitioner is carrying Censure. Hence, the respondent prayed not to consider the petitioner for the promotion to the post of Superintendent.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the punishment of Censure will be for a period of two years and the said punishment is completed by 04.09.2016. Therefore, his case may be considered for the next final seniority list and also submitted that the appeal was pending before the Government, which is filed against the imposing punishment of Censure by the respondents herein. Considering the facts and as contested by the counsel for the petitioner, the punishment of Censure will be in force 2 years from the date of imposing the punishment and the said punishment is completed by 04.09.2016.

¶15

In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for the promotion to the post of Superintendent in the next

¶16

¶17

selection subject to the pending of appeal before the appellate authority as per the seniority list.

¶18

With the above direction, the Writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

However, no costs.

¶20

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶21

closed.

¶22

_______________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 06-12-2022 Harin

¶23

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶25

224

¶26

W.P.No. 636 OF 2015

¶27

Date: 06-12-2022

¶28

Harin

A. Nagaraju, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Nagaraju, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.Yelika Venkateswara Rao Vs Mr.Nagisetti Venu and Anr.

Marrapu Appala Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Nukathoti Vasantha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Kurshid Bee Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vja, Krishna Dist Vs Mohd Sami-Unnisa, Vja, Krishna Dist and 5 Others

M/S. Sai Q and S Solutions Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh