Petitioner challenged the reduction of his acting musters for promotion as Hauler Operator, claiming 101 musters while company records showed 100. The Court found company records true due to lack of rebuttal and dismissed the writ petition.
Petition for promotion and directive to treat acting musters as regular dismissed.
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.
[3167 I
d
id
.a, 4
{
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 32725 OF 2012
Between:
Vemula Shankar, S/o Posham, aged about 37 years, Working as General N/azdoor. RK 5 lnchne. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Mandamarn, Adilabad District
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petrtron Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiapraying that tn the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to rssue a writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Wnt of Certiorarr i declaring the action of the respondents in reducing thepetttioner actrng musters of Hauler Operator(Surface) (Man-riding ) from 101 to 24as illegal and arbrtrary ii Consequently direct the respondents topromote the petrtroner as Haulei'Operator (Surface) (Man riding )duly treattng hrs offrcratrng musters as 1 01 duly granting all other consequential benefits
|.A.NO:1 OF 2012 WPMP. NO: 41673 OF 2012
Petrtron Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affrdavit frled rn support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to the drrect the respondents to consider thepetitioner candidaturefor thepost of Hauler Operator (Surface) (Man iiding), in terms of notification dated.10-9'2012 duly consrdering all the acting musters of Hauler Operator(Man ridrng) (C-lV)
4
7 /,'
f
d
i
from 2oo9 to 3O-t2 )12 or in the alternattveto keepone posto'l-lauer operator (Surface) (lvlan rrcl n l)pending disposal of the wrrtpetition'
Counsel for theFet tioner : SRI.K.VASUDEVA REDDY
Counsel for theRerpondents: SRI.NANDIGAMKRISHNARACI
The Court made th( followingORDER
{
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION N o 32725 of 2Ol2
ORDER:
This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is filed by thepetitioner seeking the following relief:
"..to issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ:(i) declaring the action of respondents in reducing the petitioner acting musters of Hauler Operator(Surface) (Man-riding) from 101 to 24 as illegal and arbitrary, (ii) Consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Hauler Operator(Surface) (Man- riding) duly treating his officiating musters as 101 duly granting all other consequential benefits andpass such other order or orders.."
2
dra ftr:d to work as General Mazdoor, whicf rS e daily rated Post. Tt ere are several other posts in the da ly raled category vtz lin:ntan, timberman, hauler oPerator ,rt,:., which ca rry the higl er categories i.e., III, IV, V & VI. T hal. whenever, there is vacancy or whenever a higher caterlor/ employee applie:;,or teave, the lower ca tegory emplcl.ee:; would be engaged on h ig her category by way of officilt,ng basis from amongst the empanelled workers and such or,iciating musters (acting r lusters) would be taken into cons irl era tion, while effecting Dromotions to the higher categcry jot)s
l
I ,i l I I I I
ir fid
acting musters instead of 101. Seeking rectification of the same, petitioner made a representation dated Ll.Og.2OI2. Instead of acting upon the sald representation, the petitioner was threatened by respondent No.4 to withdraw his claim for the promotion to the said post. It is further stated that though the petitioner has been working as Haurer operator from 2009 onwards on officiating basis and put up 101 musters, respondents have decrared onry 24 musters, thereby depriving his promotion. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
t
l
contention c'the petitioner that he has put in a total of 101 acting must{ rrs, is contrary to the record. Further t i:i stated that other t ^/o persons i.e.M/s Ande Chandraial- rvas having 151 acting nusters and Arelli Sadaiah was havircr 2ll acting masters'or the period from 01.01.2009 to 30.C6.2012. Learned S,ta rding Counsel has also stated tnat o,rl,/ tvvo posts were availa rle and therefore other two persors who were having r1o-e musters of haulage operator ltave been appointed
B. Havir g regard to the above contention'a serl by the respondent; that the petitioner does not have tre requisite acting mus.ers, the prayer sought by the petitiorer cannot be granted. I loreover, the petrtioner has not arraye:d t.he other two empl( yees who got sele.ted to the posr c f Hauler Operator
5
ttI
d
q
same is Iiable to be dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition, shall stand closed.
Sd/.MOHD SANAULLAHANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY'/ V SECTION OFFICER
To 1. One CC toSRIK VASUDEVA REDDY, AdvocatetOPUg-l- .-i. on; aa iosCr r.rar.rorcnMKRISHNARAo'Advocate [oPUC! 3. Two CDCoPtes
SA BS
q
{
I
t
HIGH COURT
DATED:0410412023
'.t
ORDER
WP.No.3271t5 of 2012
.-.--<br>,1,
t, :.','i
I
grq lr :lfi
DISMISSIN 3 THE W.P
WITHOUT()OSTS.
.) &'o 5 tr3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a reduction in the petitioner's acting musters as grounds for promotion.
Whether the petitioner's lack of requisite acting musters, as per company records, invalidates the prayer for promotion.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vemula Shankar
Singareni Collieries Company Limited
Chief General Manager (Personnel)
General Manager
Superintendent of Mines
Justice A. Abhishek Reddy
Mohd Sanaullah Ansari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
