Dismissed¶57

J Srinivasulu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Apr 2025WP(AT)/744/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; WP(AT) No. 744 of 2022 (transferred from APAT No. 744/2022); Justice B.S. Bhanumathi; decided 02.04.2025; promotion to post of Engineer-in-Chief (PH); seniority anomalies Dy.EE/EE/SE/CE; Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution; Article 226; dismissal for default; non-prosecution; death of petitioner's counsel; notice returned unserved 'Addressee relieved'; retirement on 28.02.2021 as Chief Engineer; no orders as to costs; no adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

For non-prosecution, the writ petition is dismissed for default, and there shall be no orders as to costs. ¶46

J Srinivasulu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Engineer-in-Chief by rectifying the seniority anomalies of Dy.EEs/EEs/SEs/CEs, though the applicant claimed to be senior and fully eligible and qualified, was arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner's promotion to Engineer-in-Chief (P.H.) in existing vacancies.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

For non-prosecution, the writ petition is dismissed for default, and there shall be no orders as to costs.

¶46

Key takeaways

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Ms Justice B.S. Bhanumathi), 02.04.2025 — Writ Petition (AT) No. 744 of 2022, transferred from APAT No. 744/2022. The petitioner, J Srinivasulu, Chief Engineer (PH) working in CRDA, prayed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a declaration that the respondents' action in not considering his claim for promotion to the post of Engineer-in-Chief by rectifying the seniority anomalies of Dy.EEs/EEs/SEs/CEs, though he claimed to be senior and fully eligible and qualified, was arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and for a direction to consider his promotion to Engineer-in-Chief (P.H.) in existing vacancies. After the counsel for the petitioner died, notice was ordered on 26.10.2024 but was returned unserved with the endorsement 'Addressee relieved. Hence, returned to sender'; there was no representation and the case was posted under the caption 'for dismissal'. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I placed on record written instructions of the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health, Tadepalli dated 02.04.2025 informing that the petitioner was not promoted as he had not completed two years of service in the feeder category and had retired from service on 28.02.2021 as Chief Engineer. Held: dismissing the writ petition for default for non-prosecution; no orders as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed. The merits of the promotion claim were not adjudicated.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

WEDNESDAY. THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶5

WRIT PETITION (AT) No: 744 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

J Srinivasulu, S/o J. Thirupathaiah, aged about 58 years, Occ: Chief Engineer (PH) Working in CRDA. Vijayawada AP State, Krishna District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur-522001.

¶11

The Engineer-in-Chief (PH) Public Health & Municipal Engineering Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tadepalli,^Garuda Enclave, Guntur District.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

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 declare the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of Engineer-in-Chief by rectifying the anomalies in the semonty of Dy.EE/EEs/SEs/CEs though the applicant is senior and fully eligible and qualified as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Articles 14. 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further direct the respondents to considef the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of Engineer-in-Chief(P.H) in die existing^vacancies. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.RATNA REDDY (Not Present) Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-I

¶14

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶15

APHC010600262022

¶16

4*'
/
V..
■ t

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶18

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶19

Wednesday, the second day of April, Two Thousand Twenty Five

¶20

[3311]

¶21

Present

¶22

The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi

¶23

Writ Petition transferred from APAT No. 744/2022

Between:

J Srinivasulu

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others

¶29

...Respondents

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶31

I.M. Ratna Reddy

¶32

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶33

1.GP for Services-I

¶34

The Court made the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

“ to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of Engineerin-Chief by rectifying the anomalies in the seniority of Dy.EE/EEs/SEs/CEs though the applicant is senior and^fully eligible and qualified as arbitrary, illegal and violation^ofArticles

¶39

¶40

¶41

By W.P ATNo.744 of 20l

¶42

16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further direct the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of Engineer-in-Chief(P.H) in the existing^vacancies and pass such order....”

¶43

On 26.10.2024, notice was ordered to the petitioner^sincethe Court came to learn that the counsel for the petitioner died. The notice sent to the petitioner was returned unserved with endorsement “Addressee relieved. Hence, returned to sender”.

¶44

No representation for the petitioner. The case is posted^under the caption ‘for dismissal’.

¶45

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I placed on record a copy of the written instructions of Engineer-inChief, Public Health. Tadepalli, Guntur District dated 02.04.2025 informing that the petitioner was not promoted as he has not completed two years of service in the feeder category to be promoted to the next level and meanwhile he retired from service on 28.02.2021 as Chief Engineer. \

¶46