Dismissed

P. Anil Kumar, v. The Commissioner of Technical Education

Telangana HC14 Nov 2005WP/8712/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the promotion of a senior lecturer to Head of Department over the petitioner. The court found the fourth respondent was senior due to prior re-designation under a cadre unification scheme applicable to aided polytechnics, thus dismissing the petition and dissolving the status quo.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed and the interim status quo order dated 30.4.2004 is dissolved.

P. Anil Kumar, Vs The Commissioner of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

W.P.NO.8712 OF 2004

¶3

DATED: 14.9.2005

¶4

Between:

¶5

P. Anil Kumar, S/o P. Parameswara Rao, aged about 37 years, working as Lecturer in Civil Engineering, Kamala Nehru Polytechnic for Women, Exhibition Grounds, Nampally, Hyderabad

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

The Commissioner of Technical Education,

¶9

BRKR Bhavan, Government of Andhra Pradesh,

¶10

Hyderabad and others

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶13

W.P.NO.8712 OF 2004

¶14

ORAL ORDER:

¶15

Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Government Pleader for Higher and Technical Education, and Sri P.R. Prasad, counsel for respondent No.4. None for the 3^rd respondent.

¶16

By proceedings dated 7.4.2004, the 1^st respondent directed the Kamala Nehru Polytechnic for Women, represented by its Secretary-second respondent, to consider the representation of the 4^th respondent, a lecturer in Civil Engineering Section for promotion to the post of Head of Civil Engineering Section in Polytechnic, as the 4^th respondent is fully qualified to hold the post and is senior to the petitioner. It is this order of the 1^st respondent that the petitioner is aggrieved by.

¶17

The fourth respondent, a diploma holder, entered service of the Polytechnic, a fully aided private educational institution, as a Demonstrator in Civil Engineering on 15.11.1980. Pursuant to a notification calling for applications from desiring and eligible candidates for filling up certain posts in the Polytechnic, including the post of a lecturer in Civil Engineering, the petitioner applied, was successful at the selection and was appointed as lecturer with effect from 25.9.1992.

¶18

In G.O.Ms.No.948 dated 23.12.1982, the State Government issued orders towards unification of cadres of Demonstrators and Assistant Lecturers in Government Polytechnics. Under this unification of the cadres scheme, inter alia, diploma holders with 5 years or more service working as Demonstrators were eligible for re-designation as Associate Lecturers and diploma holders with 10 years or more service as Assistant Lecturers were entitled for designation as Lecturers. It is the admitted case of the parties herein and on which there is no demurral recorded by the petitioner, that the unification of cadres scheme, introduced for Government Polytechnics in G.O.Ms.No.948 dated 23.12.1982, has thereafter been made applicable to private aided Polytechnics, as well.

¶19

Pursuant to the scheme as admittedly made applicable to the aided

¶20

Polytechnics, the 4^th respondent was re-designated as Associate Lecturer on 1.4.1991 and by subsequent orders of the management dated 15.10.1993, the 4^th respondent was re-designated as Lecturer with effect from 6.1.1992 as she had completed 10 years of service as Demonstrator, though a diploma holder.

¶21

As a consequence of the 4^th respondent’s re-designation as a Lecturer with effect from 6.1.1992, the 4^th respondent became senior to the petitioner, who was appointed as a Lecturer by direct recruitment with effect from 25.9.1992. This chronology between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent is undisputed and demonstrable.

¶22

The post of Head of Department, Civil Engineering in the Polytechnic, fell vacant on 30.6.2001. Earlier on 19.6.2001, the petitioner represented to the management of the Polytechnic for considering his case for appointment as Head of the Department in view of the petitioner’s asserted seniority over the 4^th respondent. Similarly, the 4^th respondent also applied for consideration of his case as Head of the Department, but addressed it to the 1^st respondent. On 27.6.2001, the 1^st respondent instructed the management of the Polytechnic not to fill up the post of Head of the Department, Civil Engineering, till the seniority dispute (between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent) is resolved and also called for a report from the management of the Polytechnic with a view to identify the correct seniority position.

¶23

While the 1^st respondent was deliberating with a view to resolve the issue of the seniority dispute between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent, it is alleged by the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent-Principal of the Polytechnic recommended the 4^th respondent’s appointment as Head of the Department, Civil Engineering, on a perception that the 4^th respondent is senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Lecturer in Civil Engineering. Consequent on the 3^rd respondent’s proposals, the 1^st

¶24

respondent issued a direction on 2.8.2002 to the management of the Polytechnic to promote the 4^th respondent. Thereafter, on the persuasions of the petitioner, the governing body of the Polytechnic represented to the 1^st respondent that the petitioner is senior to the 4^th respondent and it is the petitioner, who has to be promoted as Head of the Department and not the 4^th respondent. This was on 5.11.2002. Thereafter, by the impugned proceedings, the 1^st respondent reiterated his earlier direction dated 2.8.2002, to promote the 4^th respondent as Head of the Department in the Polytechnic in view of the 4^th respondent’s seniority over the petitioner in the cadre of Lecturer.

¶25

The above is a factual matrix of the case. Clearly and indisputably, in view of the scheme of unification of cadres of Demonstrators and Assistant Lecturers in Government Polytechnics, which admittedly has been applied to private aided Polytechnics as well, the 4^th respondent is entitled to designation as a Lecturer on completion of 10 years of service despite being a mere diploma holder. In fact, she was so re-designated as a Lecturer with effect from 6.1.1992. On such redesignation, which proceedings has not been challenged by the petitioner and has become final by efflux of time, the 4^th respondent becomes senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Lecturer as the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 25.9.1992, nearly 8 ½ months after the date, with effect from which the 4^th respondent stood redesignated as Lecturer in Civil Engineering in Polytechnic.

¶26

In view of these facts, the petitioner has no legitimate claim to seniority over the 4^th respondent. Resultantly, the decision of the 1^st respondent or the recommendations of the 3^rd respondent, considering the 4^th respondent as senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Lecturers in Civil Engineering in Polytechnic, suffers from no legal infirmity, warranting interference by this court. The directions of the 1^st respondent, either the one dated 2.8.2002 or the one impugned in the writ petition,

¶27

dated 7.4.2004, do not suffer from any infirmity and cannot be interdicted in judicial review.

¶28

On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is without merits and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order of status-quo dated 30.4.2004 accordingly stands dissolved. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶29

14.9.2005

¶30

CVM

P. Anil Kumar, v. The Commissioner of Technical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Anil Kumar, v. The Commissioner of Technical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Obulesudu Vs the Executive Officer

M/s. Godavri Grameena Bank, Vs M/s. Gidavari Grameena Bank

T.Bhaskar Rao Vs The Managing Director and Vice Chairman

Premier Explosives Workers.Godavarikhani Vs President Premiser Exp.Ltd GODAVARIKNIAND2

Vemula Rama Rao, Vs The Government of A.P. rep.by Secretary

R.Kanakaiah Vs The Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd.