Disposed

Peddalanka Durga Srinivas v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Sept 2024WP/22413/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sanitary Mastry employees sought promotion to Health Assistant in Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation, alleging inaction despite a 2012 promotion list. The court directed respondents to consider the petitioners for promotion per their seniority in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.780 dated 20.11.2008.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioners' case for promotion to Health Assistant as per their seniority keeping G.O.Ms.No.780 dated 20.11.2008 in view; no costs.

Peddalanka Durga Srinivas Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 22413 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Peddalanka Durga Srinivas, S/o. Raana, Aged about 32 years, Occ; Sanitary Mastry, Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry^{E.G.District.}

¶10

.Bharanika Jaya Prakash, S/o. Ramana, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Sanitary Mastry, Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry^{E.G.District.}

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of AP, Rep.by it's Principal Secretary Municipal^andUrban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^Guntur District.

¶14

The Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation, Rep. by it's^Commissioner Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

¶15

The Health Officer, Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

¶16

(Respondent No. 3 impleaded as per Court Order dated^11.07.2024 vide lA No. 1 of 2024 in WP No. 22413 of 2023)

¶17

(Cause title in respect of R.3 is amended as per Court^Order dated.22/8/2024 vide I.A. No.2/2024 in petition and affidavit)

¶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 be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly^{inthenatureof} writ of Mandamus declaring inaction of the Respondents to for promoting the Petitioners as Sanitary Inspectors even after expiry of 11 years from the preparation of promotion list on 16-12-2012 under R.O.C.No.8172/2005-F1 is illegal, arbitrary unjust, and against the Art. 14, 300-A of the constitution of India and also against the principles of natural justice and consequently

¶20

direct the Respondents to constitute the D.P.C. for promotions as per the list on 16-12-2012 under R.O.C.No.8172/2005-F1 for Sanitary Health Inspectors.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

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 consider the Petitioners for promotion as Sanitary Health Inspectors Pending disposal of the writ Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI R. GOPI MOHAN

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3 : GP FOR SERVICES^IV

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI K. SREEDHARA MURTHY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

APHC010430822023

¶28

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

¶29

[3331]

¶30

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 22413/2023

¶34

Between:

¶35

Peddalanka Durga Srinivas and Others

¶36

...PETITIONER{S)

¶37

AND

¶38

The State Of Ap and Others

¶39

...RESPONDENT{S)

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶41

1.RGOPI MOHAN

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

¶43

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶44

2.K SREEDHARA MURTHY (SC for Municipalities and Municipal Corporation services)

¶45

The Court made the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief;

¶48

to issue an order or direction more particularly in^{thenatureofWrit} of Mandamus declaring inaction of the Respondents to^forpromoting the Petitioners as Sanitary Inspectors even after expiry^of11 years from the preparation of promotion list on 16.12.2012 under

¶49

4..

¶50

Page 2 of 4

¶51

R.O.C.NO.8172/2005-F1 is illegal, arbitrary unjust, and against the Article 14, 300-A of the Constitution of India and^{alsoagainstthe} principles of natural justice and consequently direct^{theRespondents} to constitute the D.P.C. for promotions as per the^{liston16.12.2012} under R.O.C.No.8172/2005-F1 for Sanitary Health Inspectors”.

¶52

Heard Sri T.S.N.Sudhakar, learned counsel representing Sri R.Gopi Mohan, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri^{S.Raju,learned} Assistant Government Pleader for Services for 1®' respondent^andSri K.Sreedhara Murthy, learned standing counsel for respondents^2&3.

¶53

The petitioners 1 and 2 were appointed as Sanitary^Masteryin March, 2005 and April, 2007 respectively, in 2 nd respondent Corporation. For promotion to the post of Health Assistant,^feeder cadre is the Sanitary Mastery, The petitioners are eligible and qualified to the post of Health Assistant. In April, 2013, the Commissioner of 2 nd respondent submitted proposals to the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration^{toconsiderthe} case of petitioners for promotion to the post of Health^{Assistant,for} which, it was replied that the authority shall follow^{G.O.Ms.No.780} Municipal Administration and Urban Development (F1)^Department dated 20.11.2008. Accordingly, the respondents prepared^theseniority list vide 'rOC.No.8172/2005-F1 dated 16.12.2012 by^showing the names of petitioners at serial Nos.6 and 8, however, promotions^were not affected. Hence, the writ petition is filed.

¶54

While it was 4. A counter affidavit was filed by the 2"^^ respondent. not denied about the appointment of petitioners and^{theirlengthof} service, it was contended, inter alia, that a clarification letter dated 13.03.2013 was sent by the Corporation to ,the Commissioner^and

¶55

Page 3 of 4

¶56

Director of Municipal Administration seeking guidelines for promotion to the post of Health Assistants. By letter dated 03.04.2013,^{the2^^^} respondent was directed to follow G.O.Ms.No.780 dated 20.11.2008. A seniority list was prepared in the year 2022 and the petitioners are shown at serial Nos. 12 and 15. Eight Health Assistant posts exist, out of which, four posts are meant for direct recruitment, and four posts are meant for promotion from the feeder category. As per service records, seniors to the petitioners are in a row and thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶57

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3 advanced arguments reiterating the contentions as per the affidavit and counter affidavit respectively.

¶58

As seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute about the petitioners’ appointment as Sanitary Mastery in March, 2005 and April, 2007 respectively. The 2 nd respondent addressed a letter dated 13.03.2013 to the Commissioner and Director, Municipal Administration seeking guidelines for promotion to the post of Health Assistant. A clarification was issued by the Commissioner and Director, Municipal Administration to follow the G.O.Ms.No.780 dated 20.11.2008.

¶59

As per G.O.Ms.No.780 dated 20.11.2008, eligibility for promotion to the post of Health Assistant is 1) An^{intermediateor10+2} equivalent standard in Biological Sciences or Maths, Physics, and Chemistry as one of the optional subjects; (2) A sanitary Inspector training course certificate awarded by the Chairman, Board of examination constituted by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh

¶60

Page 4 of 4

¶61

or from any Government of India / Government of Andhra^Pradesh Recognized Institution; and (3) Physical fitness for^camp life as per standards as prescribed by the Government of Andhra^Pradesh.

¶62

No doubt, promotions were not effected as per the seniority^list prepared earlier, however in the seniority list prepared in the year 2022, the names of petitioners are shown at serial^Nos.12and15. As per G.O.Ms.No.780 dated 20.11.2008, concerning Health^Assistants, 30% of posts are reserved for direct recruits and thus,^70%ofposts have to be filled up from the feeder category. In the^{counteraffidavit,} it was specifically stated that seniors to the petitioners^areinarow.

¶63

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the^WritPetition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider^thecaseofthe petitioners for promotion to the post of Health Assistant^aspertheir seniority keeping G.O.Ms.No.780 dated 20.11.2008. No^costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shallstand closed.

¶64

Sd/- M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To,

//TRUE COPY//

sicTION

OFFICER

The Principal Secretary Municipal and Urban Development Department State of AP, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶71

The Commissioner, Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation, Raiahmundrv East Godavari District.

¶72

The Health Officer, Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation Raiahmundrv East Godavari District.

¶73

/X^One CC to Sri R. Gopi Mohan, Advocate [OPUC]

¶74

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

¶75

One CC to Sri K. Sreedhara Murthy, SC for Municipality (OPUC)

¶76

Three C.D. Copies.

Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED:19/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.22413 of 2023

^of anoS^
m
5 2 9 OCT 2029
Co
Current Section . ^

¶83

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Peddalanka Durga Srinivas v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peddalanka Durga Srinivas v. the State of Ap

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

V. Rajyalakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gwara Jarinaa Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bandi Madhavi Vs the State of Ap

Sri M. Durga Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Karlapudi Venkata Krishnaiah Vs the State of Ap

Chinta Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh