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

2023 Supreme(AP) 381

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
D. Satyanarayana, S/o. Appala Raju – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No.30114 of 2021
Decided on : 15-03-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri Ravi Kondaveeti

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Ministerial Services Rules, 1998 - Rule-6, 10(a) - State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1996 - Rule 33 - Determination of seniority - petitioner was temporarily appointed as attender, on compassionate grounds, regularized thereafter - Held, Appellate authority/Respondent No.2 failed to consider Class-B, Category-4(iii) of and dismissed appeal filed by petitioner on a wrong premise. However, as seen from proceedings, appellate authority simply confirmed order of CEO without assessing material and legal aspects - Appellate authority did not consider column (iii) of Category IV - In fact, as observed supra, petitioner's appointment as typist should be treated as one under column(iii) of category of IV Class-B of Annexure-I - Thus, seniority of petitioner should have been reckoned and petitioner should be placed in seniority list accordingly - Writ Petition allowed.

ORDER :

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

    “…issue an appropriate Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring action of the respondents in placing the petitioner at Sl.No.115 in the seniority list of Typists communicated through proceedings in Rc.No.04/2017/A2, dated 07.06.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent by reckoning his seniority from 20.10.2017 instead of date of his appointment by transfer as Typist i.e., 28.12.2003 and the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing the proceedings in Rc.No.281204/CPR&RD/C2/2020, dated 15.09.2021 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner as wholly illegal, arbitrary, without application of mind and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to count his seniority in the category of Typist from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 28.12.2003 and on that basis consider him for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant by including his name in the panel list of eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant for the panel year 2020-21 prepared on 28.08.2021 and pass such other and further order or orders as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner was temporarily appointed as attender, on compassionate grounds, vide proceedings Rc.No.2691/97/A1, dated 15.04.1998 in Panchayat Raj Division, Madugula, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioner joined duty on 19.05.1998. The petitioner’s services were regularized with effect from 19.05.1998 and his probation was declared on 18.05.2000 in the cadre of attender. The petitioner was promoted as Typist vide proceedings Rc.No.584 (1-Ty)/2003/A2, dated 26.12.2003 of CEO, ZPP, Visakhapatnam. Pursuant to the proceedings referred supra, the petitioner joined as Typist.

(a) The petitioner possessed Intermediate and technical qualification of Typewriting (English) Higher Grade and Typewriting (Telugu) Lower Grade as on the date of his appointment by transfer as Typist. Petitioner’s services were regularized with effect from the Forenoon of 28.12.2003 and probation was declared with effect from afternoon of 27.12.2004. Petitioner was also given special grade scale on completion of six years in the cadre of Typist with effect from 01.12.2010 vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.380/2012/A2, dated 09.03.2012.

(b) As the matter stood thus, respondent No.3 issued memo Rc.No.604/2012/A2, dated 29.02.2016 and directed the petitioner to submit Xerox copies of his General and Technical qualifications within three (3) days. Another memo vide memo Rc.No.604/2012/A2, dated 16.05.2018 was issued by respondent No.3 to submit Xerox copies of General and Technical qualifications. Petitioner, in obedience to memos, submitted the Xerox copies on 26.05.2018. In fact, according to the petitioner, he submitted his certificates in the office of Zilla Parishad, Visakhapatnam and got acknowledgement on prior occasion.

(c) Respondent No.3 prepared provisional seniority list of Typists. While preparing the provisional seniority list, objections were called for and petitioner submitted his objections. Final seniority list was prepared vide Rc.No.04/ 2017/A2, dated 07.06.2019, wherein, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.33 and in Rank No.115. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner/respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 issued proceedings No.1281204/ CPR&RD/C2/2020, dated 15.09.2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, above writ petition is filed.

3. Counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the counter affidavit, respondent No.2 contended that under Rule 10(a) of A.P Subordinate Service Rules and as per A.P. Ministerial Service Ru

    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