The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Grameena Dak Sevak challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order rejecting his promotion application. The court held the petitioner was not senior enough for promotion and prioritized him on humanitarian grounds was impermissible in 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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PETITION NO: 2145 OF 2021
Between:
V.Rajesham, S/o. V. Rajaiah, aged 6'l years Occ: Working as GADS lVD, Kukatpally Post Off ice Hyderabad
...PETITIONER
AND
...RES'.NDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiapraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature a Writ of Certiorari calling for connected records, including the Order of the Central Administralive Tribunal, At Hyderabad Bench, dated3010912020 passed in OA/02'll0103512014 as being erroneous, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased to suspend the orders Dl.30lOgl202Opassed in OA102110103512014 on thefile of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Benchpending disposal of the present writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SINGAVAJHALA NVP LAKSHMI
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: SRI SANJEEV GILLELA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 9:-------
The Court made the following: ORDER
t,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEA. RAJASHEKER REDDY AND
THE HON.BLE DT' JUSTICE SHAMEEMAKTHER
WRIT P TITION No.2145 ot 2O2t
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Dr.SA,l)
This Writ Petition, under Article226 of theConstitution of India is filed by thepetitioner, wherein,the following prayer is made:
",.,to issue a writ, order or directionmore particularly one in the nature a Writ of Certiorari calling for connected records,includingthe Orderof the Central Administrative Tribunal, atHyderabad Bench, dated 30/ogl2O2o Passedin oA/ozt/O]-o35/2014 as being erroneous,as illegal, arbitrary and consequently setaside thesame and may pass such other order or orders...."
1
Departmental Promotion Quota. The said irregularities were also brought to the notice of the respondent No.s-Senior Superintendent of Post OfFicers, Secunderabad Division. In that connection, the petitioner intimated that his name was also examined by the DPC forpromotion to thepost ofPostman, which met on 06.07.2007 and 27.04.2070. It isfurther contended that the respondents informed thepetitioner that in the DPC held on 29.04.2077, the name of thepetitioner was not figured out in the selection list, as he didnot comein the zoneoF consideration. It is also contended that the services ofthe petitioner ripened for promotion and he has to getpromotion on humanitarian grounds. The Tribunal did not considerthe entitlement oF thepetitioner forpromotion to thepostoF Postman and erroneously dismissed the subjectO.A vide impugned order dated 30.09.2020 and ultimatelyprayed to allow the Writ Petition by setting asidethe impugned orderdated 30.09.2020.
senior enough to be includedin the zone of consideration. Furthermore, thepetitioner isseeking promotionon humanitarian grounds. But there is norule oflaw which facilitatespromotion on humanitariangrounds.So far as the grievance of the petitioner with regard to selection ofother candidates for thepost of Postman isconcerned, the Tribunal observed that some irregularitiesand mistakes were committed by DPC and when the same were brought tothe notice of authorities concerned, the irregularselectionswere cancelledby conducting a review DPC. It ispertinent tostate that when the selection of other candidates is cancelled,the petitioner does not have a right to be selected,particularly,when he does not come under the zone of consideration.Underthese circumstances, the Tribunal isjustified inpassing theimpugned order dated 30.09.2020 and it does not sufferfrom any illegalityor perversity. Therefore, no relief as sought by thepetitioner can be granted in thispetition. The writpetitionis devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
Miscellaneouspetitions, if any,pendingshall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
SD/.R.KARTHIKEYAN ASSISTANT REGISTMR //rRUE COPY/' h,a SECTION OFFICER
To, 'I . The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad
4-SM
,
HIGH COURT
DATED:01/02/2021
ORDER
WP.No.2145of 2021
1
'il
"\E s
co 12 rEB illzt
* .:Y
DISMISSING THE WP
WITHOUT COSTS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's application for promotion based on seniority without inclusion in the zone of consideration warrants interference in special leave against the Central Adminis
Whether promotion on humanitarian grounds can be granted in the absence of a specific rule of law facilitating the same.
Whether impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passes in an appeal against promotion selection possesses merits to be quashed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V.Rajesham
Union of India
Chief Postmaster General, A.P.
Director of Postal Services (HORS)
Assistant Postmaster General (Vig)
Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Secunderabad
A. Rajasheker Reddy
Shameem Akther
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
