An SC Language Pandit sought notional promotion to School Assistant (Hindi) from 2011, contending an OC candidate wrongly filled an SC roster-point vacancy against G.O.Ms.No.449. Relying on B.S. Bajwa on reopening seniority after long delay, the court held the belated claim unsustainable and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3310]
APHC010034252021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2377/2021
Between:
K Rajasekhara Rao
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES III
The Court made the following Order:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking the following relief:
“…..to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action on the part of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.7081/A4/2019, dated 19.03.2020 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of School Assistant (Hindi) w.e.f. 08.11.2011 instead of 15.12.2012 as illegal and arbitrary discriminatory and against the G.O.Ms.No.449, dt.15.09.2009 and consequently to direct the respondents consider the notional promotion of the petitioner w.e.f. 08.11.2011 instead of 15.12.2012 on par with 4th respondent…….”
2
and appointed as Language Pandit (Hindi) through DSC-2002 and the petitioner was joined on 19.06.2009. Though the petitioner was selected in DSC-2002, his appointment was delayed by the respondents due to dispute with the qualification of Hindi Pandit Traning obtained from Bellary, Karnataka State. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner and others filed OAs before the Tribunal and the same were allowed. Basing on the directions of APAT, the petitioner was appointed as Language Pandit (Hindi). Thereafter, notional seniority and other benefits were given on par with the selected candidates of DSC-2002. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as School Assistant (Hindi) on 15.12.2012. While things stood thus, the 3rd respondent prepared provisional seniority list on 28.10.2011 in the cadre of SGT and LP for promotion to the post of School Assistant (Hindi) in Prakasam district. In the said list, the petitioner was shown at serial no.3 and the 4th respondent herein was shown at serial no.2. The respondents issued list vacancy position as on 01.07.2011 and shown one vacancy of School Assistant (Hindi), which ought to have filled with SC (W) Roster Point No.22, but the same was filled with 4th respondent, who belongs to OC community. As per G.O.Ms.No.449, dated 15.09.2009, if any SC (W) candidate is not available, the vacancy has to fill with SC (M), but the 4th respondent was promoted as School Assistant (Hindi) and posted at Government High School, Thurimella, which was against the terms and conditions of the said G.O. Therefore, the petitioner submitted
3
representation dated 21.11.2011 to the 3rd respondent narrating all the facts and requested to consider his promotion in the vacancy promoted by the 4th respondent w.e.f. 11.11.2011 duly giving reversion to the 4th respondent. But no orders have been passed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16104 of 2019 and this Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 07.10.2019, with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, keeping in view of G.O.Ms.No.449, dated 15.09.2009, within a period of four (04) weeks. In compliance of the above said orders, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings vide Rc.No.7081/A4/2019, dated 19.03.2020 rejecting the request of the petitioner after lapse of 9 years. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
4
category shall be communicated, as and when the employee completes the prescribed period of probation in the respective category” . It is further contended that, in obedience of the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.16104/2019, dated 17.10.2019, speaking orders were issued to the petitioner stating that the request of the petitioner is not feasible for giving notional seniority. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
5
when the 4th respondent was promoted and the petitioner continuously reminding the respondents with the matter. But the respondents ought not to have passed rejection order, without touching the merits of the case. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
1 (1998) 2 SCC 523
6
19.03.2020, issued by the 3rd respondent is legal and valid. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition.
“In rule 22-A of the said rules, after sub-rule (3) the following shall be added namely:-
(4) In the matter of promotion and appointment by transfer, involving promotion to posts for which women and men are equally suited and where the cadre strenght of posts is more than five there shall be reservation to women to an extent of 33 1/3% in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Provided that where no eligible women candidate is available to fill up the roster point earmarked to them, the vacancy shall be filled up with male SC/ST candidates as the case may be” .
7
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Bajwa & Anr’s case (stated supra), the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. Hence, this Court found no merit in the instant writ petition and devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
__________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J
Date : 20-12-2024 BMS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was entitled to notional promotion as School Assistant (Hindi) from 08.11.2011 instead of 15.12.2012 despite the delay in agitating the seniority claim.
Whether a seniority grievance raised after a long lapse of time can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.S. Bajwa & Anr vs State Of Punjab & OrsRelied on¶9
(1998) 2 SCC 523 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
K Rajasekhara Rao
The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Others
K Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
