Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. Sujatha, J.
J. Rama Krishna, E.G. Dist., A.P. - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of A.P., Endowments, Guntur Dist., 4 Otrs. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.13962 of 2017
Decided On : 18-10-2022
SENIOR ASSISTANT PROMOTION - SENIORITY LIST - REVISION - DATE OF PASSING DEPARTMENTAL TEST - DATE OF APPEARANCE - ELIGIBILITY - QUALIFICATION - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - LEGALITY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - WRIT PETITION - ALLOWANCE - IMPUGNED SENIORITY LIST - SETTING ASIDE - REVISED SENIORITY LIST - PREPARATION - DIRECTIVE - TIMEFRAME - MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS - CLOSURE - ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Record Assistant promoted to Junior Assistant and then to Senior Assistant in a Devasthanam, challenged the final seniority list showing the 5th respondent, initially a Prasadam Salesman, as senior to him. The 5th respondent, after passing the Accounts Test, was promoted as Senior Assistant on 13.11.2011, while the petitioner was promoted on 14.10.2011. The 4th respondent, Assistant Commissioner, issued a provisional senior list showing the 5th respondent as senior, leading to objections from the petitioner. Despite objections, the 4th respondent issued a final seniority list holding the 5th respondent senior and eligible for the post from 14.10.2011. The petitioner's representation for rectification was rejected, prompting the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had passed the departmental test in 2007, while the 5th respondent passed it in November 2011. The 4th respondent's consideration of the date of appearance for promotion was not sustainable in law. The 5th respondent lacked the requisite qualification at the time of eligibility for promotion and could not be treated as qualified merely for appearing in the examination. The petitioner, having passed the departmental test in 2007, was eligible for promotion as Senior Assistant on 14.10.2011.
Issues: 1. Whether the date of passing the departmental test or the date of appearance in the examination should be considered for determining seniority for promotion? 2. Whether a candidate who lacks the requisite qualification at the time of eligibility for promotion can be treated as qualified merely for appearing in the examination? 3. Whether retrospective promotion with effect from a date when the candidate was not qualified is legally sustainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The date of passing the departmental test is the relevant date for determining seniority for promotion, as per settled law. 2. A candidate who lacks the requisite qualification at the time of eligibility for promotion cannot be treated as qualified merely for appearing in the examination. 3. Retrospective promotion with effect from a date when the candidate was not qualified is not legally sustainable.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned seniority list was set aside, and the 4th respondent was directed to revise the seniority list in accordance with the court's observations within six weeks. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, were ordered to be closed.
ORDER :
1. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined as Record Assistant on 01.04.1991 in Sri Talupulamma Ammavari Devasthanam. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant on 25.05.2003 and subsequently promoted as Senior Assistant on 14.10.2011 in the 4th respondent Devasthanam as he passed all departmental tests. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 5th respondent initially joined as Prasadam Salesman in the Devastanam on consolidated pay on 01.02.1990 and later he joined as Record Assistant on 28.10.1993 and later promoted as Junior Assistant on 25.05.2003. The 5th respondent in pursuance of his passing Accounts Test for Subordinate Service in November, 2011 was promoted as Senior Assistant on 13.11.2011. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent-Assistant Commissioner issued provisional senior list of Senior Assistant of Devastanam vide Memo Rc.No.A1/169/2016, dated 17.04.2016, showing the 5th respondent as Senior to the petitioner and called for objections from the petitioner, pursuant to which, the petitioner submitted his objections on 02.05.2016. But, the 4th respondent, without considering the objections of the petitioner, had issued final seniority list vide Rc.No.A1/117/2016, dated 23.11.2016, holding that the 5th respondent was senior than the petitioner and is eligible to hold the post of Senior Assistant w.e.f. 14.10.2011 instead of 13.11.2011. Aggrieved by the said final seniority list, the petitioner made a representation on 29.11.2016 to the 4th respondent stating that the name of the 5th respondent was wrongly shown at S.No.4 instead of at S.No.5 and requested to rectify the seniority list of Senior Assistants by placing the petitioner at S.No.4 instead of S.No.5 i.e. above the 5th respondent. He also made a representation to the Minister for Endowments, who in turn endorsed the same to the 3rd respondent-Joint Commissioner directing him to enquire into the matter. But, the 3rd respondent vide his letter Rc.No.A1/6571/ 2016, dated 21.01.2017 replied to the Minister for Endowments justifying the said final seniority list of Senior Assistants dated 23.11.2016 prepared by the 4th respondent. Challenging the said seniority list dated 23.11.2016 the present writ petition is filed.
3. The 4th respondent filed his counter, while denying the allegations made in the writ petition, contended that the petitioner was appointed as Record Assistant on 01.04.1991 and he was promoted as Junior Assistant on 25.05.2003 and as Senior Assistant on 14.10.2011, whereas, the 5th respondent was appointed as Record Assistant on 28.10.1993 and was promoted as Junior Assistant on 25.05.2003 and as Senior Assistant on 14.10.2011 and only after considering the representation made by the 5th respondent and after giving notice to the petitioner, the seniority of 5th respondent was reconsidered by placing him at Sl.No.4 i.e. above the petitioner.
4. It is the further case of the respondents that the petitioner passed departmental test on 14.10.2011, but, whereas the 5th respondent passed departmental test in the month of November, 2011. As the 5th respondent was eligible and senior to the petitioner and awaiting the results of departmental test, his case was reconsidered and was given promotion on par w
The date of passing the departmental test, not the date of appearance, determines seniority for promotion. A candidate lacking the requisite qualification at the time of eligibility cannot be treated....
The court established that seniority must be determined by the date of first appointment, and settled seniority cannot be revised after a significant delay.
The promotion of an employee without prior notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice, rendering such actions void and unenforceable.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of seniority as a civil right and highlights the need to rectify mistakes committed by the official respondents in matters of seniority.
Settled seniority cannot be disturbed after a significant delay without timely objections to established seniority listings.
General category candidates senior in feeder cadre regain inter se seniority over earlier promoted reserved category roster-point promotees in higher cadre via catch-up rule, absent rules for consequ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
