Sk. Yusuf Saheb, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

SK. YUSUF SAHEB,, S/O SK. HUSSAIN SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC-SENIOR ASSISTANT, GOVERNMENT ITI CAMPUS, JAMMALAMADUGU, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, GOVERNMENT ITI CAMPUS, VIJAYAWADA.

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT ITI JAMMALAMADUGU, Y.S.R. , KADUPA DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶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 declare the action of the respondents in denying the claim of the petitioner for the post of the Superintendent since 2020 and continuing to do so and not answering the representation of the petitioner as bad, illegal, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents

¶17

2

¶18

to promote the petitioner as Superintendent w.e.f his entitlement and availability of roster point 56 (PH/OH) with all consequential benefits by issuance of Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

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 consider the case of petitioner for promotion forthwith and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.J SUDHEER

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR SERVICES III

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

3

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶29

“to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring declare the action of the respondents in denying the claim of the petitioner for the post of the Superintendent since 2020 and continuing to do so and not answering the representation of the petitioner as bad, illegal, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Superintendent w.e.f his entitlement and availability of roster point 56 (PH/OH) with all consequential benefits by issuance of Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and pass….”

¶30

Heard M/s. J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that initially the petitioner was appointed as attender in the year 2005 under compassionate appointment and later he was promoted as typist in the year 2011 and further promoted as senior assistant in the year 2011 and the petitioner is eligible and qualified to the post of Superintendent under physically handicapped quota. Though at the time of 2020, when the consideration is came, in view of the punishment effected against the petitioner, the respondents have not considered the candidature of the petitioner and the currency of the said punishment was completed on 14.11.2022. Despite the same, the respondents have not considered the vacancy which is reserved for physically handicapped quota. Hence the writ petition.

¶32

4

¶33

The respondent no.2 filed counter in which it is admitted with regard to suspension of the petitioner and awarding of punishment. Subsequently, the suspension period of petitioner was regularized on 13.9.2023 and after regularization of suspension period, there were no promotions were effected from the cadre of senior assistant to Superintendent. While considering promotion to the post of Superintendent, the candidature of the petitioner would also be taken into consideration and if there are no disciplinary proceedings, they will also consider the case of the petitioner under physically handicapped category under Roaster Post no.56.

¶34

Considering the averments made in the counter, the respondents are directed that whenever the promotions are being affected to the post of office Superintendent, let the petitioner’s case also may be considered in physically handicapped quota along with others.

¶35