Partly allowed

B Ratnamani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Sept 2024WP/18285/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order addressed two writ petitions concerning librarian promotions and seniority. The court dismissed one petition relying on delay and laches due to a nine-year silence on ad-hoc promotions, but allowed the other, setting aside an order keeping promotions in abeyance and a clarification memo issued without notice.

What did the court decide?

Dismissing WP.No.17667/2020 due to delay; allWP.No.18285/2021, quashing order keeping promotion in abeyance; setting aside clarification memo.

B Ratnamani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION Nos: 18285 OF 2021 AND 17667 OF 2020

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 18285 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

B. Ratnamani, Aged about 45 years, _Occ; LibrarianGrade-ll, Branch Library, Pithapuram, East Godavari District.

¶9

R Venkataramu, Aged about 43 years, Occ: LibrarianGrade-ll, District Central Library, Kakinada, East Godavari District,^{AndhraPradesh.}

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Dept., A.P Secretariat office, Velagapudi,^{Amaravati,Guntur} District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶13

The Director of Public Libraries, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

Y. Sridevi, D/o. Y. Prakasa Rao, Aged 47 years, Occ:^Grade-ill. Librarian Womens Library, Eluru, W.G. District, AP.

¶15

V. Santa Kumari, D/o. V. Marayya, Aged 55 years, Occ:^GradeIII Librarian Branch Library, Palakollu, W.G. District,^A.P.

¶16

D.N.B. Amarnath, S/o. D. Hanumantha Rao, Aged 46 years,^Occ: Grade- III Librarian Branch Library, Pothunuru, W.G.^{District,A.P.}

¶17

(Respondent No.3 to 5 impleaded as per Court Order dated.21/10/2021 vide I.A. No.2 of 2021 in W.P. No.18285 of 2021)

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may

¶20

be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus (a)declaring the action of the respondents^installing the promotion Orders of the petitioners to the post^{ofLibrarianGrade-1} in abeyance vide proceedings dated 1-6-2021 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to promote the petitioners to the posts^{ofLibrarianGrade-1with} all consequential benefits from 7-5-2021. (b) to declare the clarification Memo No. ESE01-LIBRODPL/59/2019-SER-I dated 13-08-2021 which was issued by the respondents contrary to the well-established settled principles of law as arbitrary and unjust and further set aside^{theMemoNo.ESE01-} LIBRODPL/59/2019-SER-I dated 13-08-2021.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings R.O No.35-A3/2021 dated.8-5-2021 through which the promotion Orders of the petitioners were put in abeyance.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim orders dated 26-08-2021 passed in WP. 18285/2021 until further orders.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M. SRIKANTH FOR SRI P. VIVEK Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR SERVICES^III Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : SMT. KAVITHA^GOTTIPATI

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO: 17667 OF 2020

¶27

Between:

¶28

G. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Sri Satyanarayana, aged about 44 years, Occ; Librarian Grade-Ill, Branch Library, Kovvuru, West^Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶29

T. Jhansi Rani, W/o. Ajay Kumar, aged about 57 years,^{Occ:Grade-Ill} Librarian, Branch Library, Denduluru, West Godavari^District.

¶30

T. Arun Kumar, S/o. Sambashiva Rao, aged about 55 years, Occ: Librarian Grade-Ill, Branch Library Pedavegi, West^Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶31

...PETITIONERS

¶32

AND

¶33

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^Guntur District.

¶34

The Director of Public Libraries, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶35

K. Swarna Kumari, aged about 59 years, Occ: Grade-ll^Librarian, Branch Library, Dhanavaipeta, Raja Mahendra varam.^EastGodavari District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶36

B. Ratnamani, aged about 45 years, Occ: Grade-ll^{Librarian,Branch} Library, Pitapuram, East Godavari District, Andhra^Pradesh.

¶37

R. Venkataramu, aged about 43 years, Occ: Grade-ll^{Librarian,District} Central Library, Kakinada, East Godavari District,^{AndhraPradesh.}

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction^{moreparticularly} one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the^action of the 2 nd respondent herein in issuing the impugned proceedings Rc. No. 041A3/2017, dated 3-1-2020 in absorbing the unofficial respondents herein as Grade-ll Librarians, who are juniors to the petitioners as per^{finalseniority} list of feeder category issued by 2"*^ respondent on^{1-9-2017inviolationof}

¶40

¶41

the Government orders issued in G.O.Ms. No. 14 Education (PE.LIB) Department, dated 14-1-2012 and G.O.Ms. No. 37 Education (PE-LIB) Department, dated 24-3-2011 as highly illegal, totally discriminatory, unjust, unfair against the principles of natural justice and prays to set-aside the impugned proceedings No. Rc. No. 041-A3/2017, dated 3-1-2020 in absorbing the adhoc promotes in the higher cadre post^{ofLibrarianGrade-ll} in Zone-ll and prays to set-aside the Proceedings Rc. No. 041-A3/2017, dated 3-1-2020 of 2"^^ respondent with further direction to promote all these petitioners on par with the unofficial respondents to the higher cadre post of Librarian Grade-ll with all consequential monetary benefits including seniority on par with their immediate juniors as per Zonal final seniority list dated 1-9-2017.

¶42

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶43

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to suspend the operation of impugned proceedings Rc. No. No. 041-A3/2017, dated 3-1-2020 of 2nd respondent Director of Public Libraries in absorbing unofficial respondents herein in the cadre of Librarian Grade-ll in violatin of G.O.Ms. No. 14 Education (PE.LIB) Department, dated 14-1-2012 and G.O.Ms. No. 37 Education (PE-LIB) Department, dated 24-3-2011 by ignoring the final Zonal seniority amongst feeder cadre Librarians Grade-Ill in Zone II as per Zonal final seniority list dated 1-9-2017 which is in operation till date.

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioners : SMT. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR EDUCATION

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : SRI M. SRIKANTH^FOR SRI P. VIVEK

¶47

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶48

j-r'

¶49

¶50

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶51

WRIT PETITION NO: 18285 OF 2021 and 17667 OF 2020

¶52

% 06.09.2024

¶53

WRIT PETITION NO: 18285 OF 2021

¶54

Between:

¶55

B. Ratnamani and Others

¶56

...PETITIONER(S)

¶57

AND

¶58

$ The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶59

WRIT PETITION NO: 17667 OF 2020

¶60

Between:

¶61

G. Srinivasa Rao and Others

¶62

...PETITIONER(S)

¶63

AND

¶64

$ The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶65

! Counsel for the Petitioner : P. Vivek

¶66

! Counsel for the 1®* Respondent: Learned Government^{Pleader,Services-lll}

¶67

Ms. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No. 17667 of 2020.

¶68

< Gist;

¶69

Head Note:

¶70

? Cases referred:

¶71

(2010) 1 see 417 2. (2010) 12 see 471 3. (2018) 3 see 391 4. (1998) 2 see 523 5. (2010) 4 see 301 6. (2013) 12 see 129 7. (2019) 15 see 633

¶72

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 06.09.2024

¶73

* THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶74

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes may be allowed to see the Judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes Marked to Law Reporters/Journals. 3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish Yes to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

APHC010307622021

SMB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶79

[3310]

¶80

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶81

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶82

PRESENT

¶83

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶84

WRIT PETITION NO: 18285 OF 2021 and 17667 OF 2020,

¶85

WRIT PETITION NO: 18285 OF 2021

¶86

Between:

¶87

B. Ratnamani and Others

¶88

...PETITIONER(S)

¶89

AND

¶90

...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶91

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶92

I.P. VIVEK

¶93

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶94

1.GP FOR SERVICES 111

¶95

2.KAVITHA GOTTIPATl

¶96

The Court made the following:

¶97

COMMON ORDER:-

¶98

Writ Petition No. 18285 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of the

¶99

Constitution of India

¶100

“to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particulariy^{oneinthenatureof} Writ of Mandamus (a) declaring the action of the respondents^{installingthepromotion} orders of the petitioners to the post of Librarian^{Gradedinabeyancevideproceedings} dated 01.06.2021 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to^promote the

¶101

¶102

petitioners to the posts of Librarian Grade-1 with all consequential benefits from 07.05.2021 (b) to declare the clearlficatlon Memo No.^{ESE01-LIBRODPU59/2019-} SER-I, dated 13.08.2021 which was issued by the respondents^{contrarytothewell-} established settled principles of law as arbitrary^{andunjustandfurthersetasidethe} Memo No. ESE01-LIBRODPL/59/2019-SER-I, dated 13.08.2021^{andtopasssuch} other and further orders”.

¶103

Writ Petition No. 17667 of 2020 is filed under Article 226 of the

¶104

Constitution of India

¶105

"to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly^{oneInthenatureof}

¶106

Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2”'^^{respondenthereininissuingthe} impugned proceedings Rc.No.041-A3/2017, dated 03.01.2020 in absorbing the unofficial respondents herein as Grade-ll Librarians,^{whoarejuniorstothepetitioners} as per final seniority list of feeder category issued^{by2"'^respondenton01.09.2017in} violation of the Government orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 14 Education (PE. LIB), Department, dated 14.01.2012 and G.O.Ms.No. 37 Education^{(PE-LIB),Department,} dated 24.03.2011 as highly Illegal, totally discriminatory, unjust, unfair against the principles of natural justice and prays to set aside^{theimpugnedproceedings} No.Rc.No.041-A3/2017, dated 03.01.2020 in absorbing^{theadhocpromotesinthe} higher cadre post of Librarian Grade-ll in Zone-ll^andprays to set aside the Proceedings Rc.No.041-A3/2017, dated 03.01.2020 of^{2"='respondentwithfurther} direction to promote all these petitioners on par with^{theunofficialrespondentstothe} higher cadre post of Librarian Grade-ll with all consequential^{monetarybenefits} including seniority on par with their immediate juniors^{asperZonalfinalsenioritylist} dated 01.09.2017 and to pass such other and further^orders”.

¶107

Heard Mr. M. Srikanth, learned Counsel representing^Mr.P.Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.18285^{of2021andrespondents} 4 and 5 in W.P.No. 17667 of 2020; Ms. Kavitha Gottipati,^{learnedcounselfor} the petitioner in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 and learned^{AssistantGovernment} Pleader, Services-lll for the official respondents.

¶108

These two Writ Petitions arise out of the same issue^andtherefore are being disposed of by a common order.

¶109

W.P.No.18285 of 2021 is filed impugning orders keeping^inabeyance the orders of promotion to the post of Librarian Grade-1^{andconsequently} sought a direction for promotion to the post of Librarian^Grade 1 with all consequential benefits from 07.05.2021. A further prayer is also made to declare the Clarification Memo No. ESE01-L1BRODPL/59/2019-SER-1, dt. 13.08.2021 issued by the Government as arbitrary and^{unjustandsetaside} the same.

¶110

W.P.No. 17667 of 2020 has been filed challenging the orders of absorption of Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 by Proceedings Rc.No.041A3/2017 dt. 03.01.2020. Further, consequential direction is^alsosoughtto with the unofficial respondents with all promote the petitioners on par consequential benefits to the post of Librarian Grade 11.

¶111

The Respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.No.17667 of 2020^aretheWrit Petitioners in W.P.No. 18285/2021. The parties are^{referredtoasarrayedin} W.P.No. 17667 of 2020 for the sake of convenience.

¶112

The facts arising in both the Writ Petitions are^{thatthepostsof} Librarians in Zilla Grandhalya Samstha were initially governed by the unamended rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.674, dated 21-3-1967.^Asperthesaid rules, the unit of appointment indicated in Rule-3A is Zilla Grandhalaya Samstha and the City Grandhalaya Samstha for the post^{ofLibrarianGrads-11.} The Petitioners in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 are working^{inthepostofLibrarian} Grade-111 and they claim that they have been appointed^{fromtheyear1986.}

¶113

¶114

They also state that they are seniors to the Respondent 3, 4 and 5. It appears that when there were large number of vacancies of Librarian Grade II, Respondents 3, 4 and 5 were temporarily promoted on 15.07.2011, to the said post in the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment, pending regular direct recruitment by G.O.Ms.No.37, Education (PE-LIB) Department dated 24.03.2011. It is the case of the Petitioners in W.P.No. 17667 of 2020 that these promotions were only temporary and were given to the Respondents 3, 4 and 5, as at that particular point of time, the unit of appointment was effectively district.

¶115

It is further submitted that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 14.01.2012 amending Rule-3A of the Library Service^Rulesissued in G.O.Ms.No. 674, dated 21.03.1967 making ‘Zone’ as the unit of appointment for the post of Category-ll - Librarian Grade-ll. It is the case of the Petitioners in W.P.No. 17667 of 2020 that after amendment, the respondents ought to have been reverted, but unfortunately without reference to the seniority, the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have been continued in the post^{ofLibrarianGrade-ll.} It is further contended that the promotions given to the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 by G.O.Ms.No. 37, Education (PE-LIB) Department dated 24.03.2011 was conditional. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner^that G.O.Ms.No.37 has clearly indicated that the promotions granted were in direct recruitment vacancies and were temporary with a condition that they would be reverted as and when direct recruitment takes place. It is also contended that an undertaking has been given by the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 on promotion.

¶116

¶117

V 9. It is contended that a seniority list dated 01.09.2017 has been communicated in the category of Grade-Ill Librarian in zone-ll and in the seniority list, the petitioners figure as seniors to^{theunofficialrespondents.} It is also stated that ignoring the said seniority list,^{theunofficialrespondents,} who are their juniors are continuing in the post of^{Grade-llillegally.} It is now contended that by the impugned proceedings dated 03.01.2020,^{theunofficial} respondents are now sought to be absorbed as Librarian Grade-ll in the vacancies meant for promotion with effect from 2013^to2015. It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioners that temporary promotions do not confer any right and the absorption now sought to be granted to the unofficial respondents is clearly illegal and arbitrary and contrary^{totheseniority} list communicated in the year 2017.

¶118

The official respondents/ Government has filed its counter in W.P.No.17667 of 2020, wherein it is stated that in^{viewofthelargenumberof} vacancies, the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have been promoted^{onad-hocbasis} in the vacancies meant for direct recruitment, as, at that particular point of time, the post of Librarian Grade-ll was a district^{cadrepostandsincethe} Respondents 3, 4 and 5 were the senior most persons^{inthesaiddistrict,they} were promoted to the post of Librarian Grade-ll. Thereafter^the post of Librarian Grade-ll was upgraded as zonal post, vide^{G.O.Ms.No.14,dated} 14.01.2012 and in view of the unit of appointment being changed^to zone, a zonal seniority list had to be prepared. When certain Librarians Grade-Ill promoted as Librarian Grade-ll on ad-hoc basis were^{shownasjuniorsto}

¶119

' x.

¶120

¶121

Librarian Grade-Ill in zonal seniority list, objections have been raised by the said persons. A request has been made by Sri M.Venkateswara Rao, Librarian Grade-ll working on ad-hoc basis in Grade-Ill to include his name in the seniority list of Librarian Grade-ll and thereafter, to consider his case for promotion to the post of Librarian Grade-1.

¶122

It appears that a clarification was sought from^{theGovernment.} The Government had issued a clarification dated 10.12.2019 stating that as per clause ‘C’ of Circular Memo No.16, dated 21.04.1999, an employee promoted to a post earmarked for direct recruitment would not commence his probation from the date of his appointment but shall be reckon his seniority only from the date on which he occupies vacancy meant for promotee. After the said memo, it appears that the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have been absorbed into the post of Librarian Grade-ll with effect from the date the vacancies meant for promotions have arisen. It is stated that by the time of upgradation of the post of Librarian Grade-ll as zonal cadre post, since the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 were already attending duties of Librarian Grade-ll, they were absorbed into the vacancies meant for promotion and therefore G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 14.01.2012 has not been ignored.

¶123

The Respondents 4 and 5 have filed counter-affidavit and mainly contended that they have been promoted to the post^{ofGrade-llLibrarianon} 15.07.2011 on ad-hoc basis and have been continuously working in the said post ever since then. It is stated that though they have been promoted in the

¶124

¶125

<*»

¶126

year 2011, their promotions have not been challenged^{bythepetitioners,} till date. It is further contended that there is delay and^{latchesonthepartofthe} petitioners and that the petitioners seek to challenge the impugned proceedings dated 03.01.2020, which is merely consequential^{withoutactually} challenging the promotions granted to them. The petitioners^{wereawarethat} Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 have been working in the^{promotionalpostsfrom} 2011 and further absorbed in promotee vacancies in^{theyear2014and2015;} but the petitioners have now approached this Court^{seektochallengethe} formal order of absorption.

¶127

it is further contended that after the issuance^{ofG.O.Ms.No.14,dt.} 14.01.2012, the petitioners have never sought for issuance^{ofazonalseniority} list and have never objected to their continuation in the post of Librarian Grade.ll. The clarification dated 10.12.2019 is clear^{andthattheywouldbe} entitled to count their probation from the date of^arising of the regular The reliance on the seniority list dated vacancies meant for promotion. 01.09.2017 in the category of Librarian Grade-Ill is^{alsomisplacedandthat} the seniority in the lower category loses its significance^{oncetheyhavebeen} promoted to the post of Librarian Grade-11. In the seniority list dated 14.02.2020 issued in the cadre of Librarians Grade-ll^{theRespondentnos.4} and 5 have been shown at SI.Nos. 5 and 6 respectively^{andthatthishasnot} been challenged. It is further contended that even^{thoughtheywerepromoted} to the post of Librarian Grade-1 on 07.05.2021, the^{ordershavebeenkeptin} abeyance vide proceedings dated 08.05.2021 illegally,^which is impugned in

¶128

¶129

W.P.No.18285 of 2021. The Writ Petition filed by the Writ petitioners is bereft of any details as to the date of appointment of the petitioners in the post of Grade-Ill or their date of absorption into the said post.

¶130

It is further contended that the post of Librarian^{Grade-11couldnot} have been made into a zonal category as the consent^{ofthePresidentofIndia} has not been obtained. The main challenge of the Respondent^No.4and5in both writs is on the ground of delay and latches. It^{iscontendedinW.P.No.} 18285 of 2021 that the Director of Public Libraries has no power under the rules to keep an order of promotion already granted in abeyance, it is stated that Rule-23 of the A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 provide for objections to be raised against promotions. It is further contended that there is no power of review of promotions conferred on the Appointing authority after a period of six months from the date of such order and it is only the Government that can do so for special and sufficient reasons to be recordedⁱⁿ writing.

¶131

It is stated that when a seniority list in the category of Grade-Ill Librarians has been issued on 27.11.2013, they were^{notincludedinthesaid} seniority list as they were working in the post of^Grade-ll Librarians. It is further contended that in the tentative zonal seniority list of Grade-Ill Librarians in Zone-ll had been communicated on 03.02.2016 in which they were shown in common seniority list. Assailing the same, they had submitted their objections and the same was disposed of assuring that their seniority in

¶132

¶133

¶134

the post of Librarian Grade-11 would be counted for further promotion as Librarians Grade-1 and that no injustice or inconvenience would be caused to them. They reiterate that since no objections have been made to their promotions and continuance to the post of Librarian Grade-11, no objections could now be raised after 9 years.

¶135

It is also stated that though no interim directions have been granted in W.P.No.17667 of 2020, the petitioners have exerted political influence and have got their promotion orders kept in abeyance. It is further contended that the rule prescribes a minimum service of two years in the post of Librarian Grade-11 for being further promoted to the post of Librarian GradeI. The petitioners in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 are working in the post of Librarian Grade-lll and are not eligible to be further promoted as Librarian Grade-1 as they do not have eligibility. The Government has issued the impugned Memo dated 13.08.2021 directing recasting of the entire seniority list in the cadre of Librarians Grade-Ill without giving any notice to the affected parties and is not supported by any rules.

¶136

In view of the above facts, it is now to be considered as to whether the Petitioners in W.P.No. 17667 of 2020 are entitled to challenge the orders of absorption of the Respondents 3 to 5.

¶137

It may be noticed that at no point of time have the Petitioners in W.P.No. 17667 of 2020 objected or represented against^{thecontinuanceof} Respondents 3 to 5 in the higher category of Librarian Grade-ll. It is clear

¶138

¶139

i -

¶140

from the facts in the present Writ Petition that the unofficial respondents have been continuing in the higher category post of Librarian Grade-ll from 2011 onwards.

¶141

Mrs. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No. 17667 of 2020 has vehemently argued that the petitioners have challenged the orders of absorption dated 03.01.2020 and that there is no delay on their part, it is further argued that the petitioners need not challenge the orders of promotion but can challenge the absorption^ordersas it affects them and it cannot be construed that there was any delay or latches on their part. The petitioners specifically aver that the present action is wholly arbitrary, since it ignores seniors, who have been working from a long time and they are being denied their just promotion. 20. On the other hand, the respondents contend that when the orders of promotion have not been challenged, the orders of absorption and seniority are merely consequential. It is further argued that the petitioners cannot seek to be promoted to the post of Librarian Grade-1, since they are ineligible as they are working in the post of Librarian Grade-Ill. It is contended that petitioners would have to first seek promotion to the post of Librarian Grade-ll and only after working for a minimum period of two years, could they be treated as eligible to the post of Librarian Grade-1. It is specifically contended that as a matter of record, no objections or even a representation has been made challenging the promotions of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In support of

¶142

¶143

their contention for the proposition that delay and^latcheswould be fatal in claims for promotions and seniority, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 rely on the catena of decisions viz., in Amarjeet Singh and Others^{v.DeviRatanand} Others wherein the Division Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court held^asfollows:-

¶144

“28. In the instant case, promotions had been made by two different DPCs held on 19-12-1998 and 22-1-1999. Both DPCs had made promotions under different Rules on different criterion and their promotions had been made with retrospective effect with different dates notionally. In the writ petition before the High Court, the promotion of the appellants had not been under challenge. The seniority which is consequential to the promotions could not be challenged without challenging the promotions. Challenging the consequential order without challenging the basic order is not permissions (Vide P. Chitharanja Memon v. A. Balakrishnan).

¶145

In Roshan Lai v. International Airport Authority of india the petitions were primarily confined to the seniority list and this Court held that challenge to appointment orders couid not be entertained because of inordinate delay^{andinabsenceofthesame,} validity of consequential seniority could not be examined. In such a case, a party is ' Under a legal obligation to challenge the basic order and^if and oniy^if the same is found to be wrong, consequential orders may be examined. ”

¶146

Therefore, it is categorically held that seniority which is consequential to the promotions could not be challenged without challenging the promotions. Further “Shiba Shankar Mohapatra V.^{StateofOrissaand} others^ ” the Division Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court^{heldasfollows;}

¶147

“30. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains^{inexistenceforareasonable} period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R.Mudgal, this Court has iaid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has by furnishing satisfactory explanation”.

¶148

^ (2010) 1 see 417 ^(2010) 12 see 471

¶149

¶150

It is very clear that for the proposition that claim against seniority and promotions should be made within 3 years in the light of above decision. 23. In “Dr.Akshay Bisoi and Another. Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and others^, wherein the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

¶151

“20. In holding that an unexpected delay on the part of the petitioners would disentitle them to relief, we place reliance on a judgment of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari”. The learned Chief Justice, after adverting to the settled position of law in that regard, observed thus: (SCC pp. 185-86, paras 27-28).

¶152

" 27. We are absolutely conscious that in the case at hand the seniority has not been disturbed in the promotional cadre and no promotions may be unsettled....the respondents chose to sleep like Rip Van Winkle and got up from their slumber at their own leisure, for some reason which is fathomable to them only. But such fathoming of reasons by oneself^is not countenanced in law. Anyone who sleeps over his right is bound to^suffer....

¶153

Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely-attract the concept of discretion. We may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting promotional benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the Tribunal and accepted by the High Court”.

¶154

Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “B.S.Bajwa and Another. Vs. State of Punjab and others^, where in it is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not

¶155

^ (2018) 3 SCC 391 '' (1998) 2 SCC 523

¶156

¶157

¶158

justifiable. In “H.S.Vankani and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others",^ wherein, it was held that the seniority once settled in decisive in the upward march in one’s chosen work or calling and gives certainty^{andassuranceand} boosts the morale to do quality work. It instils confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues, which is a paramount^factorfor good and sound administration. Therefore, it is silent that there is no explanation as to why the promotions given to the petitioners^{inW.P.No. 18285} of 2021 have not been ever objected earlier. In “State^{ofUttaranchal} Vs. Shiva Charan Singh Bandari;m6 and “Union of India and others Vs. C.GiriJa^ ”, wherein it was held that representation^{relatingtoastaleclaim} would not give rise to a fresh cause of action and^{furtherheldthatmerefiling} of representation cannot also revive a dead claim.^{Therefore,theclaimofboth} the petitioners in W.P.No. 17667 of 2020 and the unofficial^respondents in W.P.No.18285 of 2021 cannot be entertained.

¶159

At the time of admission, an interim direction to maintain status quo has been granted in W.P.No.18285 of 2021. It is to be noticed that the petitioners in W.P.No. 17667 of 2020 have not objected^{tothecontinuationof} the unofficial Respondents in higher category of Librarian^Grade-ll. It would also have to be particularly noticed that the continuation^{wasnotforashort} time but for a considerable period of almost 9 years. When^aprovisional seniority list in 2016 was issued, objections seem^{tohavebeensubmittedby}

¶160

^ (2010) 4 see 301 ® 2013 (12) see 129,

' (2019) 15 see 633

t...

V '

the Respondents 4 and Spointing out that they have^{beenpromotedtothe} post of Librarian Grade-ll prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.14^{dated14.01.2012} and that it would cause injustice to ignore their 4 14 years of service in the post of Librarian Grade-ll, which would affect their prospect of further promotion to the post of Librarian Grade-1. The 2"'^ Respondent^{inhisfinalsenioritylist} dated 18.03.2016 has stated that the seniority of ad-hoc promotes would be continued for the purpose of their further promotion^tothepostof Grade-1 Librarian. The said seniority list and the disposal of the objection by the said order is not disputed. Petitioners in W.P.No.17667^of 2020 kept^quietfor about nine years and sought to challenge the promotions of^{unofficialrespondentsat} the time of their promotion to the category of Librarian^Grade-1.

¶166

It is now well settled that delay and latches in^{servicematterswould} be fatal. In the case of 'Bichitrananda Behera Vs State of Orissa and others" (Civil Appeal No.6664 of 2023, Dated 11.01.2023), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that a belated claim in^{servicemattersoughtnot} to be entertained. The delay and latches would amount^to acquiescenceⁱⁿ certain cases. Though it is averred that it is only^{theordersofabsorptionthat} has been challenged; in the main prayer, the petitioners^{hadalsosoughtfor} promotion on par with Respondents 4 and 5. The challenge^{totheabsorption} orders would be meaningless unless the Petitioners^are granted promotion on par with the Respondents 4 and 5. Here, it is clear^{thatthepetitionershave} not chosen to challenge the promotion orders, or continuation of unofficial respondents in the higher post from the year 2011 or^{theirplacement} in

¶167

¶168

promotee vacancies in 2014 and 2015. The orders of absorption dated 03.01.2020 could not have been challenged without actually challenging the promotion granted to Respondents 4 and 5. In essence^what is being challenged is seniority granted to the Respondents, which was merely consequential on their promotion and absorption into promotee vacancies. The entire Writ Petition is silent as to why the promotions^ofthe unofficial respondents had not ever been challenged or even a^{representationwas} made against them. It is also clear that the official^{respondentsaretaking} contrary stand.

¶169

Earlier, the 2 nd Respondent has filed counter in favour of the unofficial respondents in W.P.No.17667 of 2020. Thereafter^{inW.P.No.18285} of 2021, the 2"^^ respondent now seeks to state that^{thepromotiongrantedto} the Respondents 4 and 5 was not proper.

¶170

A perusal of the impugned order dt. 08.05.2021^{inW.P.No.18285of} 2021 would reveal that no reasons are assigned for keeping the promotion of the respondents in abeyance. It is stated that after^{W.P.No.17667of2020} was filed and no interim directions have been issued by the court, some of the Librarians Grade-Ill had represented against the absorption^{andthereforethe} promotions were kept in abeyance and a clarification^{wassoughtfromthe} Government. It reveals that the Government has clarified the same by Memo dated 13.08.2021 and directed the recasting of the entire seniority list. The Government has not put the affected parties on notice^{beforeissuingthesaid}

¶171

¶172

memo and this amounts to a gross violation of principles of natural justice as well as A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules. Further, no proper or cogent reasons have been recorded. The said Memo does not disclose whether the Government had noticed the fact that the Respondents 4 and 5 were working from 2011 continuously without objections from any quarter. It is clear from the counter that till the W.P.No.17667 of 2020 has been filed, no representation or objection has ever been received. The stand of the 2"^^ Respondent IS unsustainable. It is not clear as to why the promotion of the Respondents 4 and 5 had been kept in abeyance when there are no interim directions granted by this Court in W.P.No.17667 of 2020.

¶173

In view of the specific admission that no representations or objections have ever been received against the promotion of the Respondents 3, 4 and 5 in Librarian Grade-ll, no representation can be entertained against their promotion to the post of Librarian Grade-1. It is clear that the petitioners in W.P.No.17667 of 2020 have never filed a claim for review of promotions nor have they objected to the Respondents 4 and 5 being placed in seniority list of Librarians Grade-ll. Further, since the petitioners are working in lower post of Librarian Grade-Ill, they cannot claim for promotion to the post of Librarian Grade-1, it is well settled that delay and latches are important factors to consider when exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court should not grant extraordinary relief to a petitioner who is guilty of delay or latches, or who approaches the writ court belatedly or sleeps over their rights for a considerable period of time. This has

¶174

¶175

allowed third party rights to be crystallised and therefore the W.P.No. 17667 of 2020 is liable to be dismissed.

¶176

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, upon perusal of the material on record and considering the submissions of both the counsel, the W.P.No. 17667 of 2020 is dismissed. The impugned order dated 08.05.2021 in W.P.No. 18285 of 2021 and the Clarification Memo No. ESE01LIBRODPL/59/2019-SER-I, dated 13.08.2021 are hereby set aside and W.P.No. 18285 of 2021 is allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to

¶177

costs.

¶178

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶179

¶180

//TRUE COPY// Sd/- P.VENKATA RAMANA JOINT REGISTRAR

¶181

^''^ECTION OFFICER

¶182

One Fair Copy to the HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHAr RAO (For His Lordship’s kind perusal)

¶183

To,

¶184

Secretary, School Education Dept., State of Andhra

¶185

Andh^rPrad^esh ^^'^^apudi, Amaravati, Guntur District,

¶186

^ Pradesh^^^'^ Public Libraries, Amaravati, Guntur^{District,Andhra} i

¶187

One CC to Sri P. Viyek, Advocate [OPUC]

¶188

^ *-'

¶189

1. Two CCs to GP for Services III, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶190

One CC to Smt. Gottipati Kavitha, Advocate (OPUC)

¶191

9 L.R. Copies.

¶192

The Under Secretary Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, New Delhi.

¶193

The Secretary, A.P. High Court Advocates Association High Court of A.P. at Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶194

Three C.D. Copies. Cnr

HIGH COURT

CNR

L.R. COPIES

DATED;06/09/2024

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.18285 of 2021 and 17667 of 2020

¶201

g 2 7 SEP W' S
^ Current Section

¶202

ALLOWING THE W.P. No.18285 of 2021 DISMISSING THE W.P. No.17667 of 2020 WITHOUT COSTS

B Ratnamani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Ratnamani 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mallipudi.Ravi Kumar, Vs .The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Karanam. Joseph Vinayakumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gunnam Rama Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jada Gnan Dev, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Chinnamsetti Kiran, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh,15555

V Shiva Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh