A v Suresh Vs the State of Ap

“ to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the Respondents considering the representation dated 21-10-2025 for effecting promotion to the post of superintendent from the post of Senior Assistant as per the Judgment of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(AT) No.649and 650 of 2021 dated 21-12-2022 by revising the seniority is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 22-04-1997 and also the judgments in W.P.(AT) No.649 and 650 of 2021 apart from violative of Article 14, 21 and 309 of The Constitution of India and pass

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶24

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Assistant on 29.06.2000 and was promoted as Senior Assistant on 24.07.2014 after duly passing the required departmental tests in accordance with the rules. He is fully qualified and eligible for further promotion to the post of Superintendent. As per the applicable rules, only those Junior Assistants who have passed the prescribed departmental tests are eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. However, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.165,

¶25

::3::

¶26

GAD, dated 22.04.1997 granting exemption from passing departmental tests to employees who had crossed the age of 45 years, thereby enabling them to secure at least one promotion during their service. Such promotees, who were granted promotion by virtue of exemption from the departmental tests, are not eligible for further promotion unless they subsequently pass the required departmental tests. Certain employees who were promoted under the said G.O. approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.5860 of 2012 and batch. By order dated 01.03.2013, the Tribunal clarified that if such employees pass the departmental tests, their probation shall be declared and their seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistant shall be reckoned only from the date of passing the departmental tests and not from the date of their initial promotion. Thereafter, the Government issued Memo No.125311/Ser.I(1)/2016 dated 25.01.2017 directing that the seniority of such exempted Senior Assistants be counted from the date of their promotion. The said Memo was challenged in W.P.(AT) Nos.649 & 650 of 2021, and this Court, by order dated 21.12.2022, set aside the said Memo. Despite the aforesaid judgment, the 3^rd respondent prepared the seniority list contrary to the directions of this Court and proceeded with further promotions to the post of Superintendent by assigning seniority on the basis of the quashed Memo. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 21.10.2025 requesting consideration of his

¶27

::4::

¶28

candidature for promotion in accordance with the judgment dated 21.12.2022. However, though the said representation was received by the authorities, no orders have been passed thereon. Hence the writ petition.

¶29

The learned Government Pleader filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the 3^rd respondent stating, inter alia, that the 2^nd respondent addressed a letter to the 1^st respondent, namely, the Principal Secretary to Government, Education Department, A.P., Secretariat, Velagapudi, seeking clarification as to whether the seniority of Senior Assistants who were promoted by virtue of exemption from passing departmental tests after crossing 45 years of age under G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 22.04.1997 should be reckoned from the date of their joining as Senior Assistants or from the date of passing the departmental tests, for the purpose of promotion to the post of Superintendent. The said clarification was sought vide Letter Rc.No.ESE02-15/108/2025-EST 5-CSE dated 15.09.2025, and the matter is stated to be pending awaiting clarification from the Government.

¶30

On perusal of the counter affidavit, it is evident that the respondents contend that, in view of the pendency of clarification from the 1^st respondent, they are unable to finalize the revised seniority list and effect promotions.

¶31

::5::

¶32

In as much as the issue has already been conclusively decided by this Court in W.P.(AT) Nos.649 & 650 of 2021, the respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner in the light of the said judgment. Further, as stated in the counter affidavit of the 3^rd respondent, the 1st respondent shall also consider the request made by the 2^nd respondent and issue necessary clarification, in conformity with the directions of this Court, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33