Allowed

V.v.Ramana Reddy S/o Manohar Reddy, v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

Telangana HC3 Oct 2023WP/8514/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the exclusion of the petitioner from a promotion list for Assistant Depot Clerk due to a punishment of deferment of increment, the High Court allowed the petition. It held that as the Court's review order modified the punishment retrospectively or prospectively after the promotion proceedings, the petitioner was not under punishment at the relevant time. Consequently

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Depot Clerk on par with his junior, Sri CH. Srinivas.

V.v.Ramana Reddy S/o Manohar Reddy, Vs Andhra… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 8514 OF 2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

V.V.Ramana Reddy S/o Manohar Reddy,, 49 yrs., E.305111, Conductor, H.No.12-237, Kakatiya Colony, Huzurabad, Karimnagar O,.,t'", ..."ar,r,o"a*

¶10

AND

¶11

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport, Corporation, Mushirabad, Hyderabad Rep. by its Managing Director

¶12

The Regional Manager,, A.P.S.R.T.C., Karimnagar Region, Karimnagar

¶13

The Selection C&nmittee, for^promotion to the^post of Asst.Depot Clerk in APSRTC., Karimnagar Region Rep by its Chairman-Regional Manager, Karimnagar.

¶14

The Depot Manager, APSRTC.. Godavarikhani deOot,, Karimnagg$Blti?"r,

¶15

Petition under Article 2m of he Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the^proceedings of Selection Committee dated 10.'1 1.2012, nol including the name of the^petitioner in the list of eligible candidates for promotion to the^post of Asst.Depot Clerk, is unjust, arbitrary, contrary to Recruitment Regulations, contrary to law, discriminatory^and in violation of Article 14 Article and Article 21 of the Constitution of lndia and set asade the same and consequently direct the Respondents to^promote the^petitioner to the post of Asst.Depot Clerk on^par with his^juniors with all consequentral benefrts.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2O13( WPMP. NO: 10609 OF 2013)

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to grant} an interim direction to the^respondents to^promote the^{petitionertemporarily to the} post of Asst.Depot Clerk, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶18

---7

¶19

.A. NO: 2 OF 201 PMP. NO: 16297^{0F 2013}

¶20

Petition under Section^{'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin}

¶21

the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High courtmay be pleased to grant} leavetothepetitionerhereinlofileacopyoftheproceedingsNo.PA,/.t9 (114y2013.RM/KR, dt:^{2o-o3-2o13 aS additional material paperin W.P.No.8514} ot 2013

¶22

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI A. G. SATYANARAYANA RAO}

¶23

couNSEL FoR counserfor Responden", :H [X,ssXfi sAfi,tlllt SC FOR TSRTC

¶24

The Court made^{th€ following: ORDER}

¶25

¶26

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK}

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.^{8s14 0F 2013}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition^{seekingthe following relief:-}

¶30

"-..to issue an^{appropriate writ or orderor directionmore} oarticularlv in the^{nature of Writof Mandamusdeclaring} il;--ih;^{- proceedingsofSelection Committeedated} tO. t t.ZOtZ,'not^{including the nameof the petitioner in ht} fi.t oi efrgiUf. candidates^{-for promotionto the post of-Asst'} Depot CGrk,^{is unjust, arbitrary,contraSrto Recruitrnent} nefiiiatlo.ts,'.on^{traryto taw, discriminatory and in- violati'on} .iirii"r" 14^{and Ariicle 21 of the Constitutionof Indiaand} set aside the^{same artd consequently direct the Respondents} io piorno," the^{petitionerto ti1" po"t of Asst'.Deport Clerk} .""p". "rin^{hisluniors rvithall -onsequentialbeneEtsand} pass...^"

¶31

2 Heard Sri A^{G. SatyanarayanaRao, learned counsel for} the petitioner^{and Sri Krishna Karthik'learnedcounsel} representing^{Sri GaddamSrinivas, learned StandingCounsel} for the resPondents.

¶32

It is contended^{by the learned counsel for t]le petitioner} that the^{respondentshave not included the narne of the} petitioner in^{the list of eligible candidatesfor the post of ADC} on the ground^{that he !l'as undergoing punishment of} "deferment of increment",^{though the post of ADC is non-} selection^{post and as per CircularNo'PD-32/1991-OPD(C)'} dated 24.o9.199^{I provides for consideration of conductors for}

¶33

¶34

PK,J w.P.No.85t4 oll20tg

¶35

promotion to the post of ADC from the category of conductor, if a minimum one (1) year active and clean record of service preceding the promotion has to be completed and punishments like _ "deferment of increment,, "warnind and "censure" will not be tal<en into cognizance.

¶36

4' It is further contended by the learned counser for the petitioner that as per Circular No.pD_32l20O3, dated 05.05.2003, the post of ADC was declared as non_selection post and the mode of selection is by rvay of perusal of records and as per seniority. Hence, the action of the respondents in rgnoring the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of ADC while promoting his several juniors to the said post by not implementing Circular No.PD 32l 199 t-OpD(C), dated 24.Og.Lggl is unjust and contra_rv to the recruitment regulations. Hence, he pra-t.ed this Court to allolt, the present Writ Petition.

¶37

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that as per Circular No.PD- L2O/88, dated 03.1 1. 1988 certain clarihcations u,ere issued for clean and satisfactory record. As per proviso (l ) of the said circular, if

¶38

¶39

PK'J W.P.I{o,8574 of 2073

¶40

¶41

the record of an^{employeeis free from the penalliesspecilied} at (i) to^(v) of clause^{(1) of Regulation8 of CC&A Regulations,} for one year^{preceding the period of review, itshallbe} considered as^{"Satisfactory" record. Hence, the respondents} are^justified in not^{includingthe petitiorrer'sname in the} promotion list.

¶42

This Court has^{takennote of the submissions madeby} the learned counsel^{for the respectivepartles'}

¶43

A perusal of the^{record disclosesthat admittedly,the} petitioner was under^{currency of punishmentof deferment of} annua,l increment for^{aperiod oftwo (2) years with} cumulative effect^{uide order, dated04'O4'2OI2 and the same} was modihed bl'^{the revieu'autho rrty uide order,dated} 20.03.2013 to^{- defermentof annual increment for a period of} one (1) year '"r'hich^{shall not have effect on his future} increments^s ith^{prospectiveelfect Hence, it is veryclear} that as on the^{date ofissuance ofproceedings of} Departmental^{Selection Committee,dated10 1l'2012' t}.,e} petitioner $'as not^{under currenc,r' of punishment'Further'} as per the Circular^{No.PD-32/199 1-OPD (C), dated}

¶44

¶45

PK,J W.P.No.a514 of 2073

¶46

24.O7.1991, Job Security to Conductors - Recommendations of the Committee Appointed Comprehensive Instructions, wherein it is provided that for promotion to the post of ADC/ Controller from the category of conductor, a minimum of I year active and clean service preceding the promotion has to be completed. Further, for consideration of this, the punishments like "deferment of increment", "r,r'arnind arrd "censure" will not-be taken into cognizance.

¶47

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that as on the date of revieu, order i.e., 20.03.2O13 which has prospective effect, the petitioner w.as not under the currency of punishment, Further, as per proviso V(a) of the Circular No.PD-32/1991-OPD (C), dated 24.O7.t991 for promotion to the post of ADC/ Controlier from the categon of Conductor, a minimum of (1) year active and clear serr,.ice preceding the promotion has to be completed. For consideration of this, the punishments like deferment of increment, warning and censure ',r'il[ not be taken into cognizance.

¶48

¶49

PK,J W.P.No.Es74 of 2073

¶50

'-1

¶51

In light of the above, the writ Petition is allowed and

¶52

the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Depot Clerk on par with his junior uiz., Sri CH. Srinivas.

¶53

Miscellaneous applications, if any,^pending in this writ

¶54

petition, shall stand closed. No costs

¶55

SD/-N. SRIHARI ASSTSTANTHzFAR

¶56

//TRUE COPY//

¶57

SECTION^OFFICER

¶58

to'', . tn" Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport' Corporation' Mushiraba-d,^HYderabad' 2. t'h;'i;;;;ii^{rilanrg;in P's R r c} '^{Karimnasar Reoion' Karimnasar} 3. The Selection^{co.rliJ 6i pi"l'"ti""itjl[; pt6t of Aslst DepotClerk in} APSRTC.,^{Karimnagai-RegiSn nepby its Chiirman-RegionalManager'} , +f, :H"g?'ranaser,^{APS Rrc.,Godavarikha n i d ep^ol'Ka rim nasar District'} ;. d;"c-ii;^{stl"[6sutv'na,avanaRaoAdvo-catetoPUCl} 6. one cc^{to Sricroo#i3ii.ii,l.i3dlbn rsnicjAdvo6ate toPucl}

¶59

Two CD^CoPies

MBC

GJP

\ ),-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0311012023

STATE
Li
2 3 lrN 2t2[
o
'l
1t of.'Srirt" ':./

¶66

ORDER

¶67

WP.No.8S14 of 2013

¶68

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION

¶69

WITHOUT COSTS

¶70

\s,.-->t

V.v.Ramana Reddy S/o Manohar Reddy, v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.v.Ramana Reddy S/o Manohar Reddy, v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

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

S.A. Raheem, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company

Y.Subramanyam, S/o.Y.Suryanarayana Vs The A.P. Residential Educational

Mohd. Ilyas All Khan, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Raju Dharam Sothu,M.Sc, B.Ed, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

V. Maruthi S/o. Hanumaiah, aged about 48 years, Vs The Government of A.P. rep by it Pricipal Secratary

The A.P Diary Deveolpment Cooperation Federation Empl. Assn Vs M.D, Apddcf Ltd., Hyd.