Petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing respondent to consider his promotion case and add two years of service seniority lost due to delayed promotions compared to his junior, filed representation in 2011.
Direction to consider petitioner's representation dated 08.08.2011 in accordance with law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION No. 29863 of 2011
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, declaring action of the respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner and add two years of service from the promotion date i.e. 2009 of his junior is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to consider his case as such, for further promotion eligibility for next higher post by considering his representation dated 08.08.2011.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent-corporation. The case, in brief, is:
The petitioner was a General Helper Grade-II in the Corporation and his services were regularized in the month of June 2000. He obtained Degree qualification in December 2005 and as per the Recruitment Rules of APTDC, he was eligible for promotion as Junior Assistant from the feeder category of General Helper Grade-II in 2005 itself, but he was promoted as Junior Assistant in 2007 instead of 2005, thereby he lost two years of service seniority for promotion to the next higher grade of Senior Assistant. Further, for promotion to the post of Senior
Assistant, one should have completed two years of service in the cadre of Junior Assistant and, accordingly, he ought to have got his promotion as Senior Assistant in 2009 itself, but the respondent Corporation promoted him as Senior Assistant in May 2011 instead of 2009, and thereby he lost two years service seniority in the cadre of Junior Assistant and Senior Assistant. The petitioner further submits that his junior, one L. Sammaiah, who was appointed in the month of February, 2002 as General Helper Grade-II, was promoted as Junior Assistant in the year 2007 itself and notional promotion was given in the year 2008 itself and further promoted as Senior Assistant in 2009. Hence, the petitioner submits that he lost two years service seniority as compared to his junior, and he submitted a representation to the respondent on 08.08.2011 requesting the Corporation to consider his case by adding two years to his service from the promotion date of his junior i.e. from 2009, but no action was taken by the respondent. Hence, this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is eligible and entitled for promotion as per his seniority and accordingly he made a representation dated 08.08.2011 requesting the respondent to consider his case.
Learned standing counsel for the respondentcorporation submits that the writ petition may be disposed of.
The aspect of promotion is to be considered in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the field and such relevant rules are not placed before this Court. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that his case has not been considered as per his entitlement and thereby he lost two years of service in getting promotion from the cadre of Junior Assistant to Senior Assistant, whereas his junior, one L. Sammaiah, has been p ro m o te d . Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 08.08.2011.
Having regard to the nature of relief sought for by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, without going into the merits of the case, directing the respondent-corporation to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 08.08.2011, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
20th December, 2011
Note: C.C. in two days B/o KSM
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to direct the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's representation regarding eligibility for promotion by adding service seniority.
Whether the respondent is legally obligated to consider the petitioner's claim of loss of seniority against his junior.
Whether a writ petition concerning promotion and service regularity should be disposed of without going into merits.
PETITIONER
CORPORATION
G. CHANDRAIAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
