Allowed

P. Ramanaiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Mar 2014WP/35890/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Tribunal order dismissing an application for promotion due to failure to pass a departmental test. The High Court held that petitioners, having crossed 45 years of age and received no prior promotion, were exempt from the test under G.O.Ms.No.225 of 1999, allowing the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal order dated 30-08-2013 in O.A.No.6963 of 2012 was set aside; official respondents directed to grant promotion to the petitioners if otherwise eligible.

P. Ramanaiah Vs The Government of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.35890 of 2013

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 13-08-2013 in O.A.No.6963 of 2012 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Warden Grade I by granting exemption in terms of G.O.Ms.No.225 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 18-05-1999.

¶6

2. The petitioners herein along with respondent Nos.13 to 22 filed O.A.No.6963 of 2012 before the Tribunal with a prayer to set aside the impugned proceedings issued by the third respondent herein in Rc.No.A2/89/2005, dated 17-08-2012 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.225 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 18-05-1999. The said O.A. was dismissed on the ground that they are not entitled for promotion as they have not passed the required test and their probation is not declared. 3. In the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.A2/89/2005, dated 1708-2012, which was challenged in O.A., some officers were temporarily promoted as Grade-I Hostel Welfare Officers. The unofficial respondents 4 to 12 herein who were promoted under the said proceedings are juniors to the petitioners herein. A seniority list was prepared ignoring G.O.Ms.No.225 General Administration

¶7

(SER.C) Department dated 18-05-1999 stating that the petitioners and respondents 13 to 22 herein are not eligible for promotion as they did not pass the prescribed departmental test, and so, their case has not been considered.

¶8

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the petitioners did not get any promotion after their initial appointment and they have crossed the age of 45 years, they are exempted from passing of departmental tests and that the finding of the Tribunal that they are not entitled for promotion as they have not passed the required test and their probation is not declared is incorrect, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶9

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services III contended that though the petitioners and respondents 13 to 22 herein were not given any promotion from the date of initial appointment, they were given Special Promotion Pay as per G.O.Ms.No.225 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 18-05-1999. He also contended that they have to pass the departmental tests so as to get a promotion as Grade-I Hostel Welfare Officers and considering all these aspects the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A. and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

¶10

6. The petitioners and respondents 13 to 22 herein are seeking promotion from the Grade-II Hostel Welfare Officer to the post of Grade-I Hostel Welfare Officer. It is not in dispute before this Court that they have to pass the Subordinate Officers Test, which is prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.189 Social Welfare (A) Department dated 31-12-1997. Admittedly they have not passed

¶11

the departmental tests as contemplated under the above said G.O.

¶12

7. As per G.O.Ms.No.225 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 18-05-1999 an adhoc rule came into force from 22-04-1997, which reads as follows:

¶13

“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules or in the Special Rules or in adhoc rules, the Government employees who have crossed 45 (forty five) years of age shall be exempted from passing the departmental tests prescribed in the Special rules or the adhoc rules for the purpose of promotion to the next higher category i.e., promotion or appointment by transfer involving promotion to a post above the one held by him or her, if they could not get even one promotion after their initial appointment.”

¶14

So, the above provision makes it clear that to get a promotion, passing of departmental tests is not mandatory if a person crossed 45 years of age and secondly if a person could not get even one promotion after his/her initial appointment.

¶15

8. It is not in dispute that both the petitioners herein have crossed 45 years of age and the competent authority has declared their probation. It is also not in dispute that both the petitioners herein did not get any promotion from the date of their initial appointment. Therefore, they are entitled to be given promotion to the next higher post even if they did not pass the departmental tests in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.189 Social Welfare (A) Department dated 31-12-1997. The Tribunal has not taken these aspects into consideration and came to a wrong conclusion that the petitioners herein are not entitled for promotion. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioners herein are entitled for promotion if they are otherwise qualified.

¶16

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the

¶17

impugned order 30-08-2013 in O.A.No.6963 of 2012 passed by the Tribunal in respect of petitioners herein only and the official respondents are directed to give the promotion, if they otherwise eligible. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶19

______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶20

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶21

March 11, 2014 PN

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND

¶23

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.35890 of 2013

¶25

March 11, 2014

¶26

P. Ramanaiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Ramanaiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Government of a.P., Vs K Venkateswarlu

C. Narsimlu Vs The Superintendent of Post Offices

S.Venkanna Vs The Superintendent of Post Offices

Tabeti Devasahayam, Vs The District Collector

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

Khaja Mahamood Ali Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh