Disposed

P.Omkaram, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Sept 2024WP/23290/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deputy Executive Engineer sought promotion to Executive Engineer against vacant ST roster point No. 183 in APEPDCL for panel year 2022-23, arguing adequacy was lost when an ST officer was promoted during the panel year. Court directed respondents to consider his promotion per rule of reservation guidelines within four weeks if in zone of consideration.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2 to 4 directed to consider petitioner's promotion in ST category per G.O.Ms.No.154 within four weeks, no costs.

P.Omkaram, Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 23290 OF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

P. Omkaram, S/o Venkanna late, Age 45 years, Occ- Deputy Executive Engineer, APEPDCL, Narasapuram (Operation Sub Division),^WestGodavari District

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velgapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur^District.

¶11

Andhra Pradesh Eastern Distribution Company of Andhra^Pradesh (APEPDCL), Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its^Chairman and Managing Director

¶12

Director, Finance and HRD, Corporate Office, APEPDCL Visakhapatnam

¶13

Chief General Manager, HRD, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

¶16

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 a writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not granting promotion to the petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer in 2nd respondent organization in the vacant roster point^{no.183meantfor} Scheduled Tribe Category following the rule of reservation as bad, illegal, arbitrary, abuse of power, violative of Article 14, 16, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to grant the promotion to the petitioner as Executive Engineer, in the 2nd respondent organization and to grant all consequential monitory^{andservicebenefits.}

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

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 direct the respondents to fill the roster point 183 of Executive Engineers in the 2nd respondent organization with ST candidate, following rule of reservation and GO.154 dated 30.07.2008 by considering the petitioner's representations dated 25.05.2023 & 24.08.2023.

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶20

Between:

¶21

Andhra Pradesh Eastern Distribution Company of Andhra^Pradesh (APEPDCL), Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its^Chairman and Managing Director

¶22

Director, Finance and HRD, Corporate Office, APEPDCL Visakhapatnam

¶23

Chief General Manager, HRD, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam

¶24

...Petitioners/Respondents

¶25

AND

¶26

P. Omkaram, S/o Venkanna late, Age 45 years, Occ- Deputy Executive Engineer, APEPDCL, Narasapuram (Operation Sub Division), West Godavari District.

¶27

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶28

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velgapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur^District.

¶29

...Respondent/ Respondent

¶30

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 vacate the interim passed dated; 11.09.2023 in WP No. 23290 of 2023.

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner{s): SRI D V SASIDHAR

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR SERVICES I

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 3 : SRI METTA CHANDRASEKHAR RAO, SC FOR A.P.E.P.D.C.L.

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

APHC010451052023

¶36

¶37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶38

[3331]

¶39

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶40

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

¶41

PRESENT

¶42

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶43

WRIT PETITION NO: 23290/2023

¶44

Between:

¶45

; P.Omkaram ...PETITIONER

¶46

AND

¶47

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶48

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶49

1.D VSASIDHAR

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶51

1.METTA CHANDRASEKHARA RAO

¶52

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶53

3.METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO

¶54

The Court made the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief;

¶57

to issue a writ order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting promotion to the petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer in 2nd

¶58

Page 2 of 9

¶59

respondent organization in the vacant roster point no 183 meant for Scheduled Tribe Category following the rule of reservation as bad illegal, arbitrary abuse of power violative of Article 14 16 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to grant the promotion to the petitioner as Executive Engineer in the 2nd respondent organization and to grant all consequential monitory and service benefits

¶60

a) Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 2000 through direct recruitment in erstwhile AP TRANSCO. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 2010 and currently working as Deputy Executive Engineer in APEPDCL. b) As per the rule of reservation roster points No.8, 25, 33, 58 75, and 83 are meant for Schedule Tribe. Out of them, roster points ' No.8 and 58 are meant for Schedule Tribe (Women). Petitioner is eligible and qualified to be promoted to post of Executive Engineer for the panel year 2022-23 and hence, submitted a representation on 24.08.2022 to the 2"'^ respondent. By Memo dated 19.09.2022, the 2"^ respondent informed the petitioner that adequacy in the Schedule Tribe category was achieved for the panel year 2022-23 as per rules. The petitioner made another representation dated 14.12.2022 that out of five persons mentioned in the Memo dated 19.09.2022 , one Sri M.Lakshmana Rao, Executive Engineer is promoted to General Manager on 30.11.2022 and thus requested to promote the petitioner against roster point No. 183 meant for Schedule Tribe by following the rule of reservation. The 2"'^ respondent issued a Memo dated ' 24.01.2023 that the petitioner’s case would be examined following seniority and rule of reservation for Schedule Tribe. Thereafter, the

¶61

Page 3 of 9

¶62

petitioner submitted a couple of representations on^{25.05.2023and} 24.08.2023 to promote him against roster point No.¹⁸³ meant for Schedule Tribe, however, the same is not considered,

¶63

c) The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 30.07.2008 amending the G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 09.01.2004 that while^preparing panels for giving effect to the rule of reservation^{inpromotions,the} existing vacancies of SC/ST candidates and those which^mayarisein the panel year shall also be taken into consideration^forincluding those candidates in the panel for achieving their adequate : representation, d) The post of Executive Engineers is filled till roster^{No. 182and} roster point No. 183 is vacant and reserved for Schedule Tribe candidates and the petitioner is qualified and senior^most. With these averments, the writ petition is filed. 3. a) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 4'^^respondent. It was contended, inter-alia, that as ‘per G.O.Ms.No.2^{dated09.01.2004,} the adequacy of the rule of reservation for SC/ST in^{eachcategorywill} be observed as on 1 September of every panel year as well as vacancies arising during the panel year to achieve^adequacy of representation. For the panel year 2022-23 as of 01.09.2022 available , Schedule Tribe candidates are four in number i.e.^{(1)M.Lakshmana} Rao; (2) P.Usha Rani; (3) L.China Babu Patrudu and^{(4)D.Lavaraju.} One Sri D.Adinarayana,. a senior candidate in the Schedule^Tribe category was already empanelled in the panel year 2021-22^subjectto the result of a disciplinary case, and the same is^{carriedforwardtothe} panel year 2022-23 and thus, including the name of^{D.Adinarayana,} adequacy in Schedule Tribe category is achieved for^thepanelyear 2022-23. The roster point No.183‘ for the panel year^{2022-23willbe}

¶64

Page 4 of 9

¶65

empanelled with a General Candidate from merit-cum-seniority. As per the seniority list, the turn of the petitioner does not come up for empanelment.

¶66

b) To the representation submitted by the petitioner, a detailed reply was sent on 19.09.2022 by way of a memo. During the panel year 2022-23 one vacancy was arisen in October, 2022 in the cadre of Chief General Manager due to voluntary retirement and hence, a consequential vacancy has arisen in the General Manager panel for the year 2022-23 from the cadre of Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer/General Manager. It was prepared and approved on 17.11.2022. Sri M.Lakshraana Rao Executive Engineer was promoted on 30.11.2022 as General Manager. Sri D.Adinayarana, Deputy Executive Engineer, who was carried forward from the previous panel year 2021-22 and listed in the panel year 2022-23 was promoted to Executive Engineer on 03.06.2023.

¶67

c) The APEPDCL scrupulously follows the rule of reservation from time to time. The roster point No. 183 was empanelled with the General candidate as per merit and seniority. As per G.O.Ms.No.2 Social Welfare (SW.ROR1) Department dated 09.01.2004 read with G.O.Ms.No.18 Social Welfare (SW.ROR1) Department dated 17.02.2005. There is no cause of action for the petitioner to approach this Court and thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶68

A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner, It was contended that, as per the amendment to G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 09.01.2004 by way of G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 30.07.2008, the vacancy arose in the panel year should have been taken into consideration for including those candidates, in the panel for achieving adequate representation. In the proceedings issued by the 2 nd respondent dated 24.01.2023 (Ex.P2),

¶69

Page 5 of 9

¶70

the same was reiterated. The total number of posts is 80 and the Schedule Tribe reservation of 6% comes to 4.8 rounded off to 5. Five (5) posts have to be filled up by following the rule^{ofreservation.The} panel year 2022-23 has to be counted from 01.09.2022^to31.08.2023 and after promoting M.Lakshmana Rao, only 3 Schedule Tribe candidates are available in the cadre of Executive Engineers. However, continuing the name of M.Lakshmana Rao in^thecadreof Executive Engineers is arbitrary. The carried forward vacancy of M.Adinarayana is against roster point No.158, as such there is a vacancy at roster point No. 183 i.e. 5*'^ vacancy of^Schedule Tribe candidate. One Sri P.Tirumal Reddy, - promoted in the General category against the roster point No. 183 was dismissed^fromservice by way of punishment. Now the roster point No. 183 is kept vacant and thus, prayed to allow the writ petition.

¶71

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued reiterating the contentions as per the averments in the affidavit and reply. Learned standing counsel for respondents 2 to 4 argued reiterating the contentions as per the averments in the counter affidavit.

¶72

;6. Now, the point for consideration is:

¶73

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer to meet the adequacy of representation in the Schedule Tribe category in the^cadre of Executive Engineers?

¶74

Shorn of other details, the total number of Executive Engineer posts is 80. Posts reserved for Schedule Tribe at 6%^comesto4.8 rounded off to 5 posts. As per the counter affidavit^{asof01.09.2022,}

¶75

Page 6 of 9

¶76

¶77

panel year, the available Schedule Tribe candidates are four i.e. (1) M.Lakshmana Rao; (2) P.Usha Rani; (3) L.China Babu Patrudu and (4) D.Lavaraju. One Sri D.Adinarayana, a senior candidate was empanelled for the panel year 2021-22 subject to the result of a disciplinary case, which is carried forward to the panel year 2022-23. ■ Thus, according to the respondents adequacy of reservation was achieved.

¶78

The Government issued G.0.Ms.N0.154 dated 30.07.2008 amending G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 09.01.2004, whereby comprehensive guidelines were issued in respect of the rule of reservation in promotions. The following amendment was made, which reads thus; “While preparing panels for giving effect to 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”, (emphasis is mine)

¶79

For the panel year 2022-23 as on 01.09.2022 aforesaid four persons and the name of D.Adinayarana is also included and hence, adequacy of representation was met. However, Sri M.Lakshmana Rao was promoted to the cadre of General Manager vide E.O.O. (HRD) Rt.No.240/2022 dated 30.11.2022. Even D.Adinarayana was promoted to Executive Engineer vide E.O.O. (HRD) Rt.No. 107/2023 dated 03.06.2023.

¶80

Page 7 of 9

¶81

Once the said M.Lakshmana Rao was promoted to the cadre^of General Manager, one vacancy arose as a result of such^promotion, during the panel year, which is required to be filled^up to achieve adequacy of representation. In fact, the Chairman &^{ManagingDirector} of the 2"'^ respondent by Memo dated 24.01.2023 intimated^thatthe case of the petitioner would be examined as and when^hiscaseturn comes up for promotion as EE/El., as per the seniority^and rule of f ’ reservation for STs in promotions. In the said Memo it was observed thus:

¶82

d) In the meantime, Sri M.Lakshmana Rao, EE/El., (ST Category) was promoted as General Manager, as a consequential vacancy arisen in GM/Electrical cadre due to the voluntary retirement of one of the CGM/EI., during October, 2022.

¶83

e) Further, the Additional Secretary to Government, Energy Department vide letter dated 1‘6.03.2009, has issued^thefollowing clarification;-

¶84

“In cases where inadequacy occurring with panel year^and point meant for SCs/STs arising after filling up of^certain vacancies as per seniority.

¶85

After filling up of 2"'‘ roster point in a particular^cadre,the adequate representation of SCs has been fulfilled. Subsequently, if there is any inadequacy occurs during^the panel year, the SC/ST candidates may be considered^for promotion to the higher cadre against the next roster^point meant for SC/STs as the case may be”.

¶86

Thus, the authority is also known about the rule position.^Inthis case, an interim order was granted on 11.09.2023 not^{tofillupthepost} against roster point No. 183. Though it was contended^inthecounter affidavit that P.Tirumal Reddy, BC-A candidate was promoted against ppster point No. 183, the said P.Tirumal Reddy was^{dismissedfrom}

¶87

Page 8 of 9

¶88

service vide Memo No.E-336745/EPCOR-06004(01)/6/2020-DC-4COR(SKL)/SAP.No.3431-202461/ 535495/2024 dated 14.05.2024.

¶89

It is an undisputed fact, as per the averments in the^counter affidavit, that during the panel year 2022-23 M.Lakshmana Rao, one among five Executive Engineers in the Schedule Tribe category was promoted to the post of General Manager. Thus one vacancy has arisen. As per G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 30.07.2008, vacancy arising, during the panel year, has to be filled to achieve adequacy of representation. 13. In fact, as discussed supra, the Chairman & Managing^Director of the 2^^ respondent by Memo dated 24.01.2023 (Ex.P2)^informedthe petitioner that his case will be examined as and when his case turn comes up for promotion as EE/El. as per the seniority^and rule of reservation for STs in promotions.

¶90

Given the discussion supra, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the case of the petitioner. for promotion in the Schedule Tribe category to achieve adequacy of representation in the cadre of Executive Engineers in APEPDCL keeping in view the language employed in G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 30.07.2008 and pass appropriate orders within four^weeksfromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the petitioner^is in zone of consideration. No costs.

¶91

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shallstand closed.

¶92

SD/-G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,