Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 366
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B. KRISHNA MOHAN, J.
Dara Srinivasa Rao S/o Narayya – Petitioner
Versus
Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 171 of 2022
Decided On : 27-04-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: C. Srinivasa Baba.
For the Respondent: G.R. Sudhakar.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 –Article 226 - Empowers all the High Courts of India to issue the writs - Writ petition is filed questioning action of respondents in not considering case of petitioners for promotion to post of Assistant General Manager on ground of self-appraisal reports shown as poor for preceding three years –Held, Court of India, still petitioners can avail opportunity of making a representation to respondent-Corporation seeking for promotion as Assistant General Managers- In view of settled legal position, this court feels that it is just and necessary to give an opportunity for petitioners to approach respondent- Corporation by making such a representation specifically within a period of three weeks from date of receipt of this order - On receipt of same, respondent-Corporation is directed to consider case of petitioners for promotion as Assistant General Managers in light of aforesaid decision of Court of India as expeditiously as possible preferably within eight weeks - Petition disposed.
ORDER :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.
2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant General Manager on the ground of self-appraisal reports shown as poor for the preceding three years.
3. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners initially worked as Assistant Managers in the respondent-Corporation and got promotion as Deputy Managers and they were promoted subsequently as Senior Managers. Through out their career their performance was noted as good and got promotions from time to time till the level of the post of Senior Manager. Thereafter for the reasons best known with respect to the affairs of the Corporation, their ACRs were shown as poor and consequently they are being denied further promotion as Assistant General Managers from time to time whereas their juniors were promoted to the said post.
4. The counsel for the petitioners refers to the tables under the heads of consolidated self-appraisal reports of Sri D. Srinivasa Rao, Senior Manager and consolidated self-appraisal reports of Sri N. Bala Maddilety, Senior Manager, which are as follows:
Consolidated Self-Appraisal reports pertaining to Sri D. Srinivasa Rao, Senior Manager:
S. No. Financial year Assessment by Reporting Officer Assessment by Reviewing Officer/Managing Director Score considered for Promotion as per Reviewing Officer/Managing Director
Rating Remarks Rating Remarks Rating Remarks
1. 2014-15 3.65 Very Good (far above standard) 3.60 Very Good (Far above standard) 3.60 Very Good (Far above standard)
2. 2015-16 3.75 Very Good (far above standard) 4.75 Excellent 4.25 Very Good (Far above standard)
3. 2016-17 3.00 Good (Above standard) 3.925 Very Good (Far above standard) 3.925 Very Good (Far above standard)
4. 2017-18 4.12 Very Good (far above standard) 0.50 Unsatisfactory (Poor) 0.50 Unsatisfactory (Poor)
5. 2018-19 4.12 Very Good (far above standard) 0.50 Unsatisfactory (Poor) 0.50 Unsatisfactory (Poor)
6. 2019-20 4.12 Very Good (far above standard) 2.00 Barely satisfactory (Below standard) 2.00 Barely satisfactory (Below standard)
Consolidated Self-Appraisal reports pertaining to Sri N. Bala Maddilety, Senior Manager:
S. No. Financial year Assessment by Reporting Officer Assessment by Reviewing Officer/Managing Director Score considered for Promotion as per Reviewing Officer/Managing Director
Rating Remarks Rating Remarks Rating Remarks
1. 2014-15 4.25 Very Good (far above standard) 4.25 Very Good (Far above standard) 4.25 Very Good (Far above standard)
2. 2015-16 4.25 Very Good (far above standard) 4.25 Very Good (Far above standard) 4.25 Very Good (Far above standard)
3. 2016-17 3.90 Very Good (Above standard) 4.25 Very Good (Far above standard) 4.25 Very Good (Far above standard)
4. 2017-18 3.60 Very Good (far above standard) 0.00 Unsatisfactory (Poor) 0.00 Unsatisfactory (Poor)
5. 2018-19 3.66 Very Good (far above standard) 0.50 Unsatisfactory (Poor) 0.50 Unsatisfactory (Poor)
6. 2019-20 3.66 Very Good (far above standard) 1.50 Barely satisfactory (Below standard) 1.50 Barely satisfactory (Below standard)
5. The above said tables indicate that from 2014-15 to 2019-20 so far as the Assessment of Reporting Officer is concerned, the remarks were very good for both the petitioners. So far as the assessment of the Reviewing Officer is concerned, for the first three years of financial years 2014-15 to 2016-17 the remarks were very good, excellent, and very good respectively. Thereafter from 2017-18 to 2019-2020 it is shown as unsatisfactory in the case of both the petitioners. The said remarks of the Reviewing Officer for those three financial years were on the same day after he left the office on 19.03.2020 as Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation. The counsel for the petitioners refers to the Guidelines of the Revised Promotion Policy wherein the elig
