Dismissed

K. Balakrishna v. The Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State

Andhra Pradesh HC26 Dec 2024WP/15803/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging his reversion to driver post after temporary promotion, the petitioner argued error due to seniority. The court held promotion is not a fundamental right and rejected the interference with impugned proceedings, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

K. Balakrishna Vs The Chairman & Managing… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010325242014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 15803/2014

¶6

Between:

¶7

K. Balakrishna ...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The Chairman Managing Director Andhra ...RESPONDENT(S) Pradesh State and Others

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶11

1.P GOVINDA RAJULU

¶12

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶13

1.ARUN KUMAR LATHKER(SC FOR APSRTC)

¶14

The Court made the following Order:

¶15

The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 26.05.2014 whereby the petitioner was reverted to the post of driver and posted to work at Gudur depot.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner virtually online submits that, vide proceedings dated 01.02.2014, the petitioner, along with twelve others employees of the respondent corporation, was promoted to the posts of Assistant Depot Clerk/ Assistant Depot Clerk (Tech)/Controller. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents promoted five other drivers to the post of Assistant Depot Clerk vide

¶17

¶18

proceedings dated 26.05.2014; however, in the same proceedings, the petitioner was reverted.

¶19

The learned counsel submits that reversion orders ought to have been issue for all the employees who were promoted along with the petitioner, as the petitioner is senior when compared to the other employees. It is also submitted that the impugned orders reverting the petitioner to the post of driver are without any basis.

¶20

The learned Standing counsel for the respondents submits that a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed and that the promotion accorded to the petitioner and other employees was purely a temporary promotion. Condition Nos.1 and 2 make it very clear with regard to the temporary nature of the promotion. It is also submitted that the temporary promotions are issued to ensure the smooth running of the business of the corporation. At times, persons who do not possess the required qualifications or service may be promoted temporarily and such promotions would be reverted once a suitable replacement, possessing the requisite qualifications, is found to handle the said post. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not among the senior employees who were interviewed and only those employees senior to the petitioner were considered for promotion and accordingly issued

¶21

¶22

orders. It is also submitted that a selection committee followed the applicable circulars and regulations while considering the cases of promotion and as such, no prejudice can be claimed by the petitioner in the passing of the impugned proceedings.

¶23

Considering the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings, observing that promotion may be a right, but it is not a fundamental right. The claim of any employee for promotion cannot be considered as a fundamental right.

¶24

With these observations, no further orders are required to interfere with the impugned proceedings.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no

¶26

order as to costs.

¶27

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶28

stand closed.

¶29

Date: 27.12.2024 NKA

¶30

_____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶31

¶32

196

¶33

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.15803 of 2014 Date: 27.12.2024

¶35

NKA

K. Balakrishna v. The Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Balakrishna v. The Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State

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.Chinna Rao, Vs The Project Officer, I.T.D.A

Smt. G. Anupama, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Medical & Health Department

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, W.G. District & Another Vs Presiding Officer, Hon'Ble Labour Court, Guntur Dist & Anr.

Dasari Malakondaiah, Prakasam District Vs Chairman &M.D.,Apsrtc.,Hyderabad & 2 Others

U.Bharathi,Anantapur,& 24 Vs Apcpdcl,Chairman,Md,&Anot

G.Ramesh Reddy, Vs M.Vijay Kumar