ORDER :

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

“…to (a) quash the impugned order in Memo No 235/A/A1/2015-2016, dated 20.02.2016 passed by the 1st respondent (b) direct the respondents to finalize year wise panels for promotion as deputy Director for the panel years 2008-09 and 2009-10 (c) direct the respondents to promote the applicant as Deputy Director from the panel year 2008-09 (d) direct the respondents to fix the pay of applicant in the post of deputy Director and pay the arrears (e) direct the respondents to submit revised pension proposals based on the pay fixed in the cadre of the Dy.Director and consequential terminal benefits such as encashment of earned leave, Gratuity and commutation of pension etc. (f) direct respondents to pay costs of the application to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders…….”

2. Brief facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Typist and was promoted as Superintendent and further to the post of Backward Classes Welfare Officer. He was fully qualified for promotion as Deputy Director, B.C. Welfare Department, but before he was so promoted, he retired from service on the AN of 30.6.2010 as Special Officer, AP Commission for B.Cs, Hyderabad, which is equivalent to the post of Deputy Director, B.C. Welfare. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.106 SW (B) Department, dated 19.10.1983 bifurcated the Social Welfare Department into three viz., (1) Social Welfare (2) B.C Welfare and (3) Tribal Welfare. The employees were allotted to the above three departments. The petitioner was allotted to B.C. Welfare Department.

It is further stated that a DPC was held in B.C Welfare Department for the promotion of D.B.C.WOs as Dy. Directors during the panel year 2007-2008. The name of the petitioner was approved in that DPC for promotion as Dy. Director in G.O.Ms.No.38 B.C. Welfare (A) Dept dated 7.8.2008. but due to personal and family reasons, the petitioner was not in a position to accept the promotion and requested to omit him from the promotion for the panel year 2007-2008. Accordingly, the petitioner’s name was omitted. No DPC was conducted during the panel year 2008-2009 stating that no vacancies were existed to fill up by promotion. Thus the petitioner was denied an opportunity of being promoted as Dy. Director for precious year. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has issued proposals for conducting DPC for the panel year 2009-2010 and in the said proposals, the petitioner name was mentioned. However, no DPC was conducted till retirement of the petitioner on 30.06.2010. It is further stated that before the retirement of the petitioner fresh proposals were submitted vide Rc.A/3468/2008, dated 11.06.2010 and Rc.No.A3/5654/2007 dated 17.06.2010 including the name of one Sri Y. Prabhakara Rao, a non-departmental employee above the petitioner in the panel year was promoted as Dy. Director.

While the matter stood thus, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 11.3.2011 stating that though vacancies exited for the panel year 2008-09 but the DPC was not conducted till his retirement and hence he was wrongfully denied promotion as Dy. Director. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued Memo No.907/A2/2011-1 dated 14.3.2011 requested the 2nd respondent to submit his remarks vide Rc.No.A3/3224/2011, dated 18.5.2011 contending that the petitioner has declined promotion during the panel year 2007-08 that DPC during the panel year 2008-09 could not be held, and that DPC for the panel year 2009-10 was held in July 2010 in that Sri Y.Prabhakar Rao was promoted who was below the petitioner. Even if he was not retired from service at the time of DPC he will not get his promotion as there was only one vacancy of Dy.Director available then. Non conducting of DPC for 2008-09 even though vacancy exists cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Viewed from any angle, the regularization of Sri Y Prabhakara Rao in B.C Welfare Department and plac