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) 405

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
B. Lalitheswara Rao, S/o. B. Manikyala Rao - Petitioner
Versus
The state of Andhra Pradesh, Rep: by its Principal Secretary to Government and Others. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.17953 of 2019
Decided On : 16-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri P.V. Ramana.
For the Respondents: Sri K.Sridhar Murthy.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14, 16, 21 - Rejecting promotion of petitioner to post of Electrician Grade-II, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India - Petitioner is entitled for promotion to post of Electrician Grade -II from date of his eligibility as against existing three (03) vacancies with all consequential benefits - Held, order passed by Commissioner/2nd respondent, rejecting petitioner's case for promotion does not meet contention of petitioner qua promotion affected to three persons - Thus, order passed by Commissioner/2nd respondent, in opinion of this Court, needs to be set aside - As pointed out supra nothing is placed before this Court regarding adoption of Rules formulated in G.O.Ms., Public Works (LLJ) Department, to Corporation - Matter is remanded to 2nd respondent- Writ petition allowed.

ORDER :

1. The Writ Petition is filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.6177/2019/E2 dated 05.10.2019, rejecting promotion of the petitioner to the post of Electrician Grade-II, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Electrician Grade –II from the date of his eligibility as against the existing three (03) vacancies with all consequential benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as Electrical Helper on 22.08.2008 on compassionate grounds. Petitioner’s probation was declared. Next promotion is Electrician Grade-II. Petitioner passed Wire Men Test. Andhra Pradesh Electrical Licensing Board issued certificate in the year 1997. With the Wire Men Certificate Sri V.D.Rajendra Prasad, Sri B.L.Mohan Rao and Sri P.Chinnaji Rao were promoted to Electrician Grade-II. Petitioner made a representation, dated 09.11.2018. Since his representation, dated 09.11.2018 was not considered for promotion, petitioner filed W.P. No.11605 of 2019 seeking direction to the respondents to consider his representation. However, without considering the representation properly 2nd respondent passed the order and hence writ petition was filed. The said writ petition was disposed of on 20.08.2019. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court directed respondents to consider the representation. However, since the respondent authorities failed to consider the representation as per the direction of the order of the Court and passed orders, the above writ petition was filed.

3. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 2nd respondent. In the counter affidavit, it was contended that Sri B.Rajendra Prasad, Electrical Helper, Sri B.L.Mohan Rao and Sri P.Chinnaji Rao, Gang Mazdoor of Engineering Section were promoted as Electrician Grade-II contrary to the rules and regulations.

4. Petitioner submitted representation, to the Commissioner/2nd respondent on 29.05.2018 and 09.11.2018 seeking promotion to the post of Electrician Grade-II. The Commissioner/2nd Respondent upon receiving representations of the petitioner addressed a letter to Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Electrical Licensing Board of A.P., Guntur, seeking clarification as to whether the petitioner is eligible for promotion of Grade-II Electrician with the qualification of Wire Men Certificate. However, the Secretary of Andhra Pradesh Electrical Licensing Board has not clarified the same.

5. Earlier promotions of 3 persons were affected by violating rules and regulations particularly the terms and conditions laid down vide G.O.Ms.No.107, Public Works (LLJ) Department, dated 07.02.1974. There is no illegality in the order impugned. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Heard Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Sridhar Murthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd & 3rd respondents, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration Urban Development appearing for 1st & 4th respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that petitioner filed W.P.No.11605 of 2019 questioning inaction of the respondents in not considering petitioner’s representation, dated 09.11.2018 to consider his case for promotion to the post of Electrician Grade-II. Writ petition was disposed of by order dated 20.08.2019 directing respondent No.2 to consider petitioner’s representation within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Learned counsel also would submit that commissioner/2nd respondent rejected the representation without meeting or considering all the averments in the representation. Learned counsel would also submit that there are no Rules in Municipal Service for filling up the post of Electrician Grade-II. Learned counsel pointed out that G.O.Ms.No.107, Public Works (LLJ) Department, dated 07.02.19

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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