Dismissed

Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, v. Smt.Burra Jayasri

Telangana HC12 Mar 2014WP/31849/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Writ Petitioner challenging an Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal order. The Tribunal directed promotion with seniority for applicants exempt from tests due to age over 45 or 50. The Court found the Tribunal's order proper but clarified that specific unlisted respondents must not be disturbed if vacancies exist.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed; the Tribunal's order directing promotion remains unaltered subject to the proviso regarding vacancies for specific respondents.

Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 31849 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.04.2012 in Original Application No. 1503 of 2011 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

¶6

2. The petitioner herein is respondent no.1, and respondents 1 to 3 herein are the applicants, and respondents 4 to 10 herein are respondents 2 to 8, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶7

3. Challenging the promotion order given to respondents 5 to 8, the Original Application was filed before the Tribunal. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal disposed of the Original Application directing the respondents to promote the applicants to the post of Head Master of High School and place them above the unofficial respondents 5 to 8, by extending notional seniority, and if there are no vacancies, to take steps to accommodate the applicants by reverting the unofficial respondents, if necessary.

¶8

4. Heard both sides.

¶9

5. Vide proceedings Rc.No.A3-2541/99, dated 07.03.2011, the Panel Committee, duly following senioritycum-roster, filled up vacancies of Head Masters by promotion, and the applicants were not given promotion

¶10

for the reason that they have not passed the prescribed departmental test viz. Accounts Test. It is the case of applicants that they crossed age of 45 years and so they are exempted from passing departmental tests for promotion to the next higher category. The issue is squarely covered by G.O.Ms. No.30, Education Department, dated 23.06.2010 amending G.O.Ms. No.10, Education (Services.II) Department, dated 23.01.2009, paragraph No.2 (iii) of which reads thus:

¶11

“(iii) (a) : All persons who have crossed 45 years of age shall be exempted from passing departmental tests for promotion to the next higher category above the one held by her/him. This benefit is extended to ensure that every employee gets at least one promotion during his entire service. This exemption shall be given only once in the entire service.

¶12

(iii) (b) : All persons who have completed 50 years on the date of appointment to any post shall be exempted from passing the tests referred in Column (1).”

¶13

Insofar as clause (a) is concerned, if a person exceeds 45 years of age, he is exempted from passing departmental tests for promotion to the next higher category, and the exemption shall be given only once in entire service. Clause (b) deals with persons who completed 50 years of age on the date of appointment, and such persons are exempted from passing the tests. So, when the Rule is very clear that passing of Accounts Test is exempted when a person crosses 50 years of age, the respondents authorities ought to have promoted the applicants as Head Masters. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly directed the respondents to promote the applicants to the post of Head Master of High Schools and place them above the unofficial respondents in the Original

¶14

Application. That order needs no interference by this Court. However, it is made clear that respondents 7 to 11 herein (respondents 5 to 8 in the Original Application) shall not be disturbed if there are vacancies in the category of Head Master.

¶15

6. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶16

-----------------------(K.C. BHANU, J.)

¶17

----------------( ANIS, J.)

¶18

12.03.2014 DRK

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANIS

¶20

WRIT PETITION No. 31849 OF 2012 (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶21

12.03.2014

Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, v. Smt.Burra Jayasri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, v. Smt.Burra Jayasri

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

Tabeti Devasahayam, Vs The District Collector

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Sri K. Rajanna, Gr.I Warden

P. Ramanaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

A.Chandra Mohan Rao Vs Dist Collector Rr Dist and 2 Ors.

D. Bhaskar Kumar, S/o. Joseph Vs Y. Narayana Rao, S/o. Y. Venugopal

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs Sri S.H.R.Naqui, Asst.Research Officer (Retired)