Writ petition regarding seniority disputes in the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service was dismissed due to substantial delay by the petitioner in challenging the seniority list four years after it was finalized.
The Writ Petition is 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.
[33e3 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special original Jurisdiction)
, ]
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT THE HONI'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE .i AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI ,1 wRltprrrfloN No.38442 0F 2012
Between:
G. Ramakrishnaiah, S/o. G. Chengaiah, Residing at Quarter No.B-6, B-Block, Enamanzil Colony, Hyderabad 500 082.
...PET]TIONER
AND
Petition under Arti cle 226 of the Constitution of lndiapraying that in the circumstances stated'iri the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order of the 1"t respondent dated 16.06.2012 and common seniority list dated 06.12.2008 of categories 2, 3 and 4 of Division-l of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service in so far as itplaces the 2nd respondent above thepetitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct theI 'l st respondent to consider thepetitioner forpromotion treating him as the Senior [/ost Joint Registrar.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. RATAN SINGH
Mr. G. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PARTY-IN-PERSON
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI SUMANTH RAVURI REPRESENTING SRI BATHULA RAJ KIRAN, S.C. FOR APHC
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRIP. LAKSHMANARAO
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOKARADHE AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.38442 OF 2Ol2
ORDER: @er the lTon'bte Shri Justlce Aml Kumar .lukanti)
This writ petition is filcd aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in cieclaring the order of the respondent No.1 dated 16.06.2012 and conrmon senioritv list dated 06.12.2OO8 of categories 2, 3 and 4 of Division-l of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service and placing the respondent No.2 above the petitioner AS illegai and arbitrary and consequerrtly to direct the respondent No.1 to consrder the petitioner lor promotion to the post of Registrar by treating him as the Senior Most Joint Registrar
'.
CJ &, JAK.J ), W P.No..l8+42 ot2012
Mr SumanthRai,uri, learned<:ounsel representlng Ivlr. B.RajKiran, lcnrnecl StarrdingCounsei lor Andhra PradeshHigh Courtappearsfor respondent No' 1'
Petitionerjoinedthe Andhra Prad'eshHigh Court CourtMaster on10 01'1984and was Serviceas appointedas District Munsif on temporary basis in the year1 989.I1c requcstcdfor repatriationto the Andhra PradeshHigh Court Serviceand again joined as Court Masterin the year 2O0O tli: was promo[ed to the post of AssistaltRegistrarin the year 2003 and was promoted to the postof Deputy Registrarin the year 2007'
3.1High Courtprepared a seniority list on O6'12'2OOa for thepost of Joint Registrars' the petitionerwas shown at S1.No.6and thc respondent No'2 was shownat Sl'No'4' Petitionerwaspromot'edasJointRegistrarinthemonth of May,201O and respondentNo 2 was promotedas Joint '*- Segistrarin the monthof March' 2010'
CJ & .JAK.J w P.No.38442oI20l2
3
3.2 Thegrrevanceof the petitioneris that petittoner should havebeenpromoted to the post of Joint Registrar prior to respondentNo.2. That respondent No'2 was promoted to thepost of Registrar (Management)in the month of February ,2073 and hc retired fromservice on attaining theage of superannuationThe petitioneris challenging theorder of rejection by respondentNo'l dated 16.06.2O12and theseniority list'dated 06.12.2008.
4.1 It is submittedthat two posts of Registrar were vacant, that thepetitioner made a representation on 29.03.2012representinghis grievanceand that he should be consideredfor promotion'It is trite to state
4 CJ & .,IAK, .I W.t' No 38442 oi20 12
that in thereprcsentation,the petitionerhas not expressed aboutthe anomaly of Lhc senioritylist'The petitioner has retircdfrom service on 30 09'2013'
4.2 It is submitt.c:dthal thepost ofRegistrar (Management)ls an upgradedpostar-rd that there is no ratio accordingto which the selection is to be made' That the petitionerwas a Court mastcrarrd he \ /as on a higher pedestal compareclto respondentNo ' 2. The petitioner submits thatthe senioriry list r'vas not prepared in accordance wittrrulcs. That ifrcpresentations were considered inproper perspcctlveand seniority list prepared asper rules, hc would have been eligible to be promoted to thepost of Registrar (Management)' lt is submitted thatthe petitionerand rcspondent No'2 have retired fromservice.
CJ & JAK, J w.P.No 38442 of 2012
Tribunal in the year1986 and was absorbed inthe services of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal in the year 1994.
5.2 It is stated in the countera-ffidavitthat the seniority list of Deputy Registrars as on O1.O7.2OOBwas prepared
..i li,.JAI\ .i w 1,.No..18.t12 oit0 i2
6
on 06.12.200gand ifthe petitioner was ?..ggrleved' he should havequcstioflecl1.hc senioritylist immediately' That the petitionercainotchallengethe senicirity list at this distanr.point oI timc (i.e', after fcruryears)'
'7 . A perusal ofrecorcl shows thatsenicr:iiv list pertaining tothat of Depul.i'Rt--gistrars 25 6r: 0iC'i 20OB -{raspreparcdon06'12-,]C108.11-iSt-ritctotakr.-.noteofthc fact tiiattlee writ pel-itir'rnis filcd in thc v't:ar'2L) 12 i e ' ' a{ter4vearsoffinalizaticlr'rofsenlorit.yiisllfa.tzr]1thr: petitioner had anygrievance with respect to the seniority list, he shouldhave chalienged'the list immediatelylt is pertinent tonote that in the mealtime'the petil-ioner ald respondentNo.2 were promoted to thc post of Joint perrised Lhe recordandon' I?.egistrars.Ha\iing rhis Courl is olthe oPinion that consideratir:nof lacts,
7 CJ & JAK, .' W.P No.38442 ol20l2
the petitioner has approached the Court at a belated point of time. There is substantia,l delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging thc seniority list. No grounds are made out warranting interference in the order of respondent No.1 dated 16.06.2012 and the seniority list dated O6.12.2OOA.
B. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. No order as to
CoStS
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, in this
Writ Petition shall stand closed.
sD/-P.CH.NAGABHUSHAM BA ij ASSISTANT REGISTRAR r I //TRUE COPY// sEcnoN #r,"=*</sup>
To,
MP
SB
ii ; I iiisll I I t fi tilfllf:i I t1
i l; i,i
HIGH COURT
DATED:0310112024
1t{6 STAI 6'
l!
o 2 3 JA\ 202[ a
cls
DEs i-rn1 C{
ORDER
ilil rlil liil irl
WP.No.38442 of 2012
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
G. Ramakrishnaiah
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
C. Vidyadhar Bhatt
Alok Aradhe
Anil Kumar Jukanti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
