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
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
Chairman Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors v. A Masilamani
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. G. Sreenivas Reddy & Ors.
Bhikhubhaivithalabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat
Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain
Ram Chander Vs. Union of India
Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway Vs. T.R. Chellappan, 1976 (3) SCC 190
SupremeToday
The need for fair and objective consideration of representations in promotion cases, as directed by the court.
The court upheld the principle that a petitioner is entitled to the benefits of a promotion as per previous orders and should not be deprived of such benefits, especially after retirement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the compliance with the Division Bench's directions and the applicable provisions of law in rejecting the petitioner's claim.
Accrued employment rights cannot be retrospectively affected by administrative orders without proper procedure, especially for approved probationers.
Promotion benchmark of 80 marks requires cumulative computation from character roll entries plus additional factors like capability, merit, technological knowledge per paragraph 7(7) before suitabili....
The denial of promotion based on uncommunicated adverse remarks in confidential reports is arbitrary and violates principles of natural justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.