The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition challenging an OrdeNo.2965 of 2016 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The petition questioned the classification of 'appointment by transfer' as 'promotion' for reservation purposes. The Court rejected the claim.
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.
[3318 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TENTHDAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 21469 OF2016
Between:
M.V.Narasa Das, S/o.Krishna Das,Aged about 45 years, Occ : Junior Assistant. Srikatta Maisamma Mahalakshmi Temple,Begumpet,Hyderabad
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased rto issue a writ, order or direction more so, a writ in the nature of mandamus, by declaring the orders in O.A.No.296512012, dated.25.04.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal as bad illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of law regarding the application of rule of reservation and infringement of fundamental rights and consequentiallyto directthe 2nd respondent to appoint thepetitioner as Executive Officer, Grade- lll in Endowment Department.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 26358 OF 2016)
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying thatin the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support ofthe petition, the HighCourtmaybe pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to consider representationof the petitioner for appointment of Executive Officer Grade- lll in EndowmentDepartment, during pendencyof above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl.G. VASANTHARAYUDU
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and 2'. GP FOR SERVICES-II
Counsel for the RespondentNo.3: SRl.P. V. S. S. S. RAMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.S:SRl.M. ARVIND
Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRl.P.B.K. MURTHY
Counsel for the RespondentNo.4,6,8and 9: NONE APPEARED
The Court made the following: ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEABHTNANDKUMARSHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRIJUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO WRIT PETITION No.2L469OF 2016
ORDER:(Per theHon'bleSi Justice Abhinand Kumor ShauiLi) Aggrieved by the order dated25.04.2016 passed in O.A.No.2965 of 2Ol2 bythe Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad,(for short 'the Tribunal'), the present writ petition has beenhled.
AKS.J & RRN.J 2 \t! l' \o.l I469 ol20l6
(Endowments- 1) Department, dated 20.O5.2OO2 and G.O.Ms.No.123, dated 19.O4.2OO3, the post of Executive Officer Grade-lll is liable to l>e hlled up by direct recruitment as well as appointment by transfer. His grievance is that in G.O.Ms.No.262, dated 20.O5.2OO2, the exprt:ssion used is 'appointment by transfer', but actually, it should be treated AS 'promotion'. While effccting promotions, theState Government has to follow- the rule of reservationeven the matters of Executive Officer Grade-III also. Whenthe case of the petitioner 'r'as not considered for extendingreservation for promotion to the post o1 Executive Ofhcer Grade-III,the petitioner has approached thc Tribunal by frling O.A.No.2965 of 2072. Without appreciatitrg any of the contentionsraised by the petitioner, the Tribunal uide order dated25.04.2076 has dismissed the said O.A. I{ence, thepresent r,t-rit petition.
r'
AKS,J & ITRN,J 3 w.l'.No 21469 of 2016
reservation. Therefore, appropriate ordersbe passed in writ petition by directing the respondentsto consider the case of the petitioner for appointment bytransfer to the post of Executive Officer Grade-III as he belongs toSchedule Tribe Community.
AKS,J & RRN,] ' W.P.No.2l4(r9 of 20l6
4
imagination, it cannot be termed as 'promotion'. Therefore, the question of extending reservation to the post of Executive Officer Grade-III by appointment by transfer does not arise. The Tribuna-l wasjustified in dismissing the O.A. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interlere with the order passed by the Tribunai.
be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand
closed
SD/- K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSTST4NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII (]} SEGTION OFFICER
To,''1 . One CC to Sri. G. Vasantha Rayudu, Advocate [OPUC]
TJ GJre)--
H GH COURT
DATED:1010712023
ORDER
WP.No.21469 of 2016
a SIAIA.
1.
s
(
y
oo [1 [lJB?m
.ir/
^
., '
- --r/sc ,,x- ,. , ..- ',-'1 "',,,
'-==--:a-,r.-/'
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION
WITHOUT COSTS.
1
z-u{olzs
J
!o
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the post of Executive Officer Grade-III filled by appointment by transfer constitutes promotion entitled to reservation benefits.
Whether the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was justified in dismissing the transfer proceeding without applying the reservation rule.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order dismissing the petitioner's claim for reservation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.V.Narasa Das
State of Telangana
Commissioner of Endowments
P.Srinivas
P.Mohan Reddy
M.Mohan Reddy
Abhinandkumar Shavili
Namavarapu Rajeswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
