Disposed

B Rajashekar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Dec 2024WP/527/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police Head Constable sought notional promotion as Assistant Reserve Sub-Inspector and review of promotions based on earlier departmental proceedings. The court noted the seniority-fixation issue was already pending with the Inspector General of Police and directed that officer to consider the petitioner's case and pass a reasoned order within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 2nd respondent to consider petitioner's case and pass reasoned order on seniority/promotion within two months.

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

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANIMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION Mn- .iOT

¶6

Between:

¶7

B. Rajashekar, S/o. Late B.Venkateswarlu Aged about 48 years, Occ:

¶8

ARSI No.124/717, 9*'’ Bn APSP Venkatagiri, Nellore District, A.P.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Guntur District.-

¶12

¶13

The Inspector General of Police APSP Bns, Mangalagiri, Guntur

¶14

District, A.P.

¶15

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range-4, APSP Bns, APSP Head Office, Managalagiri, Guntur District, A.P.

¶16

The Commandant, 9«^ Bn APSP, Venkatagiri, Nellore District, A.P.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not nd implementing the proceedings of the 2 respondent in Rc.No.A2/86/2018 dated 25-1-2018 and Rc.No.A2/86/2018 dated 8-8-2018 and not reviewing the promotions in the cadre of ARSI and not according notional promotion to the petitioner as ARSI even after more than 2 years as illegal, arbitrary and Violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 Hir« f Th Constitution of India and consequentially the respondents to review the promotions in the cadre of ARSi and

¶19

accord notional promotion to the petitioner as ARSI by implementing the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.A2/86/2018 dated 25-1-2018 and Rc.No.A2/86/2018 dated 8-8-2018 issued in pursuance of the Judgment in W.P. No. 25544/2017 dated 7-8-2017 forthwith. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 accord notional promotion to the nd petitioner as ARSI by implementing the proceedings^ofthe2 respondent in Rc.No.A2/86/2018 dated 25-1-2018 and Rc.No.A2/86/2018 dated 8-8-2018.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. VENKATA KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

APHC010007052021

¶23

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

¶24

[3310]

¶25

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

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANIMADHA RAO

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO: 527 OF 2021

Between:

B Rajashekar

...PETITIONER

AND

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

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

1.G VENKATA KRISHNAIAH

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) The Court made the following:

¶37

ORDER:-

¶38

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶39

issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Wri! of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents i n not implementing the proceedings of the 2'^ respondent in Rc.No.A2/86/2018 dated 25.01.2018 and Rc.No.A2/8e/2018. dated 8.8.2018 and not reviewing the promotions in the cadre of ARSt and not according notional promotion to the petitioner as ARSI even after more than 2 years as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently

¶40

, fife

¶41

direct the respondents to review the promotions in^{thecadreofARSIand} accord notional promotion to the petitioner as ARSI^{byimplementingthe} proceedings of the 2!"^ respondent in Rc.No.A2/86/2018^{dated25.1.2018and} Rc.No.A2/86/2018 dated 8.8.2018 issued in pursuance^{oftheJudgmentin} W.P.No.25544/2017 dated 7.8.2017 forthwith and pass^{suchotherorders.} .."

¶42

Heard Mr. G. Venkata Krishnaiah, learned counsel^{forthepetitioner,} who appeared virtually and learned Assistant Government^{Pleader,Services-I} for the respondents.

¶43

During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner^{wouldcontendthat} initially he was appointed as Police constable in 7*"^^{APSPBattalion,Dichpally,} Nizamabad District on 30.04.1994 and he was promoted^{asHeadConstable} on 14.03.2002. While he was working APSP Anneparthy, Nalgonda^Districtas Head Constable he underwent eight weeks promotional training and accordingly he was included in ‘C’ List of HCs for^{promotionofARSIsbythe} proceedings of the Commandant 12^^ Battalion dated^{01.05.2014andhewas} promoted as ARSI vide proceedings dated 01.11.2014.^{Consequentonsuch} promotion the petitioner’s services were regularized^{andhisprobationwas} declared in the cadre of ARSI vide proceedings dated 31.12.2015. The petitioner was opted to the State of A.P during reorganization^ofStateandas the respondents sought to allocate the petitioner to^State of A.P as Head Constable instead of ARSI. Therefore, the petitioner^{madearepresentation} dated 10.03.2016 with a request to transfer him as^ARSIinstead of Head Constable. While the matter stood thus, while the review^{ofthepromotionof} HCs to ARSIs by the 2'^'^ respondent is pending and^{withoutreferencetothe}

¶44

¶45

said review of promotions, the respondents have held^{thepre-promotional} Training to all the eligible HCs including petitioner in normal course from 15.02.2019 to 26.02.2019 and conducted promotion test^{forpromotionand} effected promotions to the successful HCs and ARSls^and as such, the petitioner was promoted as ARSI on 27.05.2019. The^{petitioneriswaitingfor} his notional promotion as ARSI by way of a review of^{promotionsofHCstobe} undertaken by the 4^'^ respondent. A perusal of the^{SeniorityListrevealsthat} several juniors to the petitioner in the cadre of HC^{arepromotedasARSlsand} working as such in the 9‘^ Battalion as on the date^{ofthepetitionerallocatedto} AP and posted to 9*^ Battalion as Head Constable, who^{beingtheseniorto} them, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence,^{thepresentwritpetition} in this writ came to be filed questioning the inaction of the respondents petition.

¶46

Per contra, 4 respondent filed counter-affidavit and mainly contended that the petitioner claiming his notional^{seniorityfromthedateof} his promotion as ARSI in Telangana State is not correct,^{sincethepetitioner} was reverted as HC in Telangana State and reported in APSP Bettalion, Mangalagiri only in the cadre of HC. As such, the seniority^asARSI in the State is to be fixed in the Head Office. The Head Office^{wasaddressedinthis} connection with a request to fix up the seniority of^{thepetitionerintheStatein} the category of ARSI and the orders are awaited. Therefore,^requested to pass appropriate order in this writ petition.

¶47

Perused the record.

¶48

¶49

nd 6. However, the issue relating to the petitioner is^{pendingwiththe2} respondent for appropriate orders to fix up the seniority^{ofthepetitionerinthe} State in the category of ARSI as admitted in the counter-affidav it. It is suffice it to issue a direction to the 2"^^ respondent to consider^{thecaseofthepetitioner} and pass appropriate reasoned order yvithin two (02)^{monthsfromthedateof} receipt of a copy of this order.

¶50

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is^{disposedof.Thereshall} be no order as to costs.

¶51

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{pendingshallstand}

¶52

closed.

¶53

Sd/-J.SAROJA assistant registrar

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal^{Secretary,Home} Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District,-

¶58

Department 522238.

¶59

General of Police APSP Bns, Mangalagiri. Guntur

¶60

1. The Inspector District, A.P. General of Police, Range-4, APSP Bns, APSP

¶61

1. The Deputy Inspector Head Office, Managalagiri, Guntur District, A.P. Bn APSP, Venkatagiri, Nellore District, A.P.

¶62

1. The Commandant, 9th 5. One CC to Sri G, Venkata Krishnaiah, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCS to GP for Services-I, High Court of Andhra^{Pradesh.[OUT]}

¶63

Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/12/2024

ORDER

WP.No.527 of 2021

o
ax
\ve 1 2 DEC 202^1 I
Current Saction

¶70

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

B Rajashekar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Rajashekar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guntur Viswaswe Rao, Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Siri Minerals, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mrs Gunapati Mithila Sri Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Javangula Ramachandra Nath, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V. Krishnamurthy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Gowdapera Dileep, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh