SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 1322

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. PANCHAL, H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.
K. Balarama Raju - Appellant
Versus
Ch. V. Subramanya Sarma and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8200, 8201, 8202 of 2011.
Decided on : 26-09-2011.

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :V. Sridhar Reddy, Ch. Leela Sarveswar, V.N. Raghupathy and Ms. C.K. Sucharita, Advocates.
For the Respondents:P.S. Narsimha, Sr. Adv., K. Maruthi Rao, K. Radha and Mrs. Anjani Aiyagri, Advocates.

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Article 229 - Challenged the decision of the Andhra Pradesh - These three appeals arise from judgment and Order – Employment and service - All aforesaid three appellants and first respondent at relevant time were working on administrative side of High Court at Hyderabad in categories (4) and (5) along with other employees of Division-II Assistants/Examiner & Typist/Copyists - They were interested in their promotion to immediately higher post of Computer Operators which is in Category 3 (b) of Division-II – Held, Three appellants had contended that petition filed by first respondent suffered on account of latches and delay in moving High Court - Court have already pointed out that when order was issued first respondent represented representation was rejected - He moved for a review but same was not responded - When seniority of Computer Operators was published by notification and objections were invited first respondent submitted his objection - That representation was rejected by High Courts Proceeding and first respondent was placed junior to three appellants - He challenged that communication by his - Thus there was no delay or latches on part of first respondent in moving High Court - In the circumstances, we do not find any error in judgment and order of High Court which accepted legitimate seniority of first respondent above three appellants - High Court has allowed Writ Petition filed by first respondent, set aside gradation list of computer operators as and further directed the High Court administration to their seniority and to grant consequential benefits - Court approve this judgment and order passed by Andhra Pradesh High Court, although also for the reasons given in this judgment - These three appeals are therefore dismissed interim stay granted by this court will stand vacated - Appeals dismissed

JUDGMENT :

H.L. Gokhale, J.

Leave granted.

2. These three appeals arise from the judgment and Order dated 19.12.2008 passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing Writ Petition No. 11920/2008 filed by Ch. V. Subramanya Sarma who is joined as respondent No. 1 in all these three matters. The appellant in the first Appeal arising out of SLP No. 598/2009 and the two appellants in Appeals arising out of SLP No. 5318/2009 were respondents to the aforesaid Writ Petition. All the three appellants and the first respondent are employees of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, and the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 11920/2008 was concerning their seniority and promotion. The said Writ Petition challenged the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on its administrative side granting seniority to these three appellants over the first respondent. The Writ Petition having been allowed, these three appellants have filed SLP Nos. 598/2009 and 5318/2009. The third SLP is filed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

3. All the aforesaid three appellants and the first respondent at the relevant time were working on the administrative side of the High Court at Hyderabad in categories (4) and (5) alongwith other employees of Division-II i.e. Assistants/Examiner & Typist/Copyists. They were interested in their promotion to the immediately higher post of Computer Operators which is in Category 3 (b) of Division-II.

4. The service conditions of all these three appellants as well as the first respondent are governed under the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service Rules, 1975 framed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of his powers conferred under Article 229 (1) and (2), of the Constitution of India. The High Court administration issued a circular dated 24.10.2000 calling for particulars from the members of the High Court establishment for filling up these posts of Computer operators in accordance with the above referred rules. As far as this promotion is concerned, it was to be effected on the basis of a written and an oral test which were to be conducted by the officials of the National Informatics Centre (NIC).

5. It was the case of the first respondent that under Rules 7 (7) and 8 (4) of the aforesaid rules the requisite qualification for the post of a Computer Operator was to possess a degree in Typewriting, capability in English in higher grade, and post-graduate diploma in computer programming or post graduate diploma in computer applications. He had this qualification and therefore he applied for that post, and when the test was conducted on 1.11.2000, he cleared that examination. Nine other candidates also cleared the said test including the three appellants in SLP Nos. 598/2009 and 5318/2009. However, they did not posses the aforesaid requisite qualification of post graduate diploma in computer programming or post graduate diploma in computer application. The High Court Administration however issued an order dated 7.11.2000 permitting them alongwith two others to acquire the requisite prescribed qualification within one year failing which they were to be reverted. In this order dated 7.11.2000 the three appellants in SLP Nos. 598 and 5318/2009 were shown at Serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3, whereas the first respondent was shown at Serial No. 4. The order issued by the Registrar (Administration) dated 7.11.2000 reads as follows:-

    "PROCEEDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD SUB-ESTABLISHMENT - HIGH COURT OF A.P. HYDERABAD -Promotion to Category 3 (b) of Division II i.e. Computer Operators- Orders - Issued.

    READ:- 1. G.O.MS.NO. 156 Law (LA & J Courts.C) Department, Dated 18.10.2000

    2. High Court's Circular ROC NO. 6017/2000/Estt., dated 24.10.2000 ....

    ORDER ROC NO. 6939/200/Estt. 2 dated 7.11.2000

    The Hon'ble the Chief Justice is pleased to pass the following order:- The following members working in Category 4 and 5 of Division II i.e Assistants/Examiners and Typists/Copyists who have appeared for the Writt

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top