Allowed

The Registrar v. Shri a.Machender Rao

Telangana HC16 Jun 2014WA/2027/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Appeal filed by the appellant against the single judge's order was dismissed. The court held that the University's restriction of the 50% promotion quota to Senior Assistants, while allowing other similar-grade employees like Store Keepers for open recruitment, was discriminatory and unsupported by law.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ appeal and no order as to costs.

The Registrar Vs Shri a.Machender Rao — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT APPEAL No.2027 of 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The respondents are working as Store Keepers Grade-II in the Osmania University. They filed W.P. No.15848 of 2003 for a writ of mandamus, to declare that they are entitled to be promoted to the post of Superintendents against 50% seniority quota on par with Senior Assistants. They pleaded that the scale of pay for the post of Store Keeper Grade-I and the Senior Assistant is the same and that though they are eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent under 50% quota, they were not considered.

¶5

2. The writ petition was opposed by the appellant. It was pleaded that 50% of the posts of Superintendents are filled through promotion from the feeder category of Senior Assistants and the remaining 50% posts are filled on the basis of written test, conducted for the eligible employees of the University. It was also pleaded that the respondents cannot be equated to the Senior Assistants and that they cannot be considered against 50% promotion quota.

¶6

3. The writ petition was allowed through order, dated 20.08.2013. Hence, this appeal.

¶7

4. Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that for the past several decades a uniform practice was being followed to restrict the feeder category for promotion to the 50% posts of Superintendents to the Senior Assistants, whereas for appointment on the basis of written test, various categories, including the store keeper were treated as eligible. He submits that the Senior Assistants are well acquainted with the administration of the University and on promotion as Superintendents, they would helpful for the effective administration. He submits that the direction issued by the learned single Judge is not referable to any rule or provision of law.

¶8

5. Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that once the Store Keepers and other employees with similar scale of pay in the University Service, are treated as eligible to participate in the written test for

¶9

promotion/appointment as Superintendents, there is no reason why such employees cannot be considered for promotion on the basis of seniority. He submits that notwithstanding the dichotomy maintained in appointment/promotion, the eligibility or the feeder categories would remain the same and the action of the University was not supported by any provision of law.

¶10

6. The post of Superintendent is one of the cadres in the University service. The appointment to the post of is not through direct recruitment. It is only by upgrading the employees of the University in the immediate inferior category. The University has decided to fill 50% of the posts of Superintendents through promotion and to fill the remaining posts on the basis of the performance in a written test. The participation in the written test is restricted for certain categories of employees, who draw the pay scale of Senior Assistants.

¶11

7. For promotion to the post of Superintendent on the basis of seniority, in 50% of the vacancies, Senior Assistants alone are treated as the feeder category. Other categories of employees drawing pay scale of Senior Assistants such as Store Keepers are made ineligible for this. The claim of the respondents, who are the Store Keepers, is that they are entitled to be considered for promotion on par with the Senior Assistants. The resistance to the claim of the respondents is only on the basis that the University has been treating the post of Senior Assistant alone as feeder category for promotion, and not others.

¶12

8. Howsoever long the practice may have been, unless it is supported by a valid provision of law in the form of any regulation framed by the University, the action which is otherwise discriminatory cannot be sustained. This is particularly so, when the post of Store Keeper is treated as feeder category for the remaining 50% of posts, through the process of written test.

¶13

9 . Reliance is placed by the appellant upon a letter, dated 13.06.2003, addressed to all the members of the University and Constituent colleges in the context of filling up of 8 posts of Superintendents under 50% written test quota. The following category of employees are treated as eligible.

¶14

“All the Senior Assistants and other employees in similar grade working in the University possessing at least PUC/Intermediate qualification with (5) years total regular service of which not less than two years as Senior Assistant or in the similar grade.”

¶15

9. Apart from not supporting the case of the appellant, the letter adds strength to the case of the respondents. Even where the appointment of a higher post is through different modes viz.,

¶16

(a) through promotion on the basis of seniority and (b) and appointment on the basis of performance in the written test, restricting to half category of employees; feeder category would be common. No instances of any dichotomy being maintained as to the feeder categories in this behalf are brought to our notice. Learned Single Judge has taken correct view of the matter, and we do not find any basis to interfere with the same.

¶17

10. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶18

___________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶19

_____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶20

June 16, 2014. KTL

The Registrar v. Shri a.Machender Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Registrar v. Shri a.Machender Rao

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

The Zonal Manager Vs Md.Abdul Razzaq

Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Vs J.Ramana Devi

Telangana Boggu Gani Karmika Sangam Vs Bantu Saraiah

The Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Ltd. Vs M.v.Somasundaram S/o Vsr Somarajulu

B. Vimaladevi Vs R.B.V.R.R. Womens College

Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Vs P. Nagamalleshwara Rao