Promotions must be made in accordance with the merit-cum-seniority list prepared as per Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 26.01.2009, and ignoring seniority to promote juniors is a violation of the rule position.

ORDER :

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

“.....to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not preparing the merit-cum-seniority in the cadre of S.G.T for the batch 1998 and in not promoting the petitioner from 2009 and not fixing the seniority from the year 2009 in the cadre of School Assistant by following the merit-cum-seniority in the cadre of SGT and also by not following G.O.Ms.No.15 Education (SE-Ser.II) Department dt 26.01.2009 is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to promote the petitioner from 2009 itself as SGT and fix the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of School Assistant from the year 2009 by duly following G.O.Ms.No.15 Education (SE-Ser.II) Department dt.26.01.2009 and by preparing the merit-cum-seniority list in the cadre of S.G.T for the batch 1998 and to pass such other order...”

2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that petitioner is working as School Assistant(Maths) in Z.P.High School, Ch.Malkapuram, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District. Initially, the petitioner herein was selected to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in mathematics in the open category by the duly constituted District Selection Committee in the year 1998, though the petitioner belong to the BC-A category, basing on his merit, he was appointed on 15.08.1998. Later he worked as Secondary Grade Teacher in various villages. In the year, 2020 the petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant (maths). He further submits that as per the Service law jurisprudence even though the petitioner was selected to the post of SGT(Maths) in the open category basing on the merit, since the petitioner belong to the BC-A category, his case was not considered for promotion under reserved category. It is further submitted that once a selection has been done basing on the merit then the same has to be followed. But unfortunately in the present case on hand, the respondents have not prepared any merit cum seniority list in the category of SGT regarding the 1998 batch in which the petitioner was selected. Moreover, the junior most candidates in the list of SGT (Maths), 1998 batch got promoted to the post of School Assistants even though the petitioner was the senior most eligible candidate in the said category.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.15 Education (SE-Ser-II) Department dated 26.01.2009 had formulated General Rules relating to Regulations for Promotions and Transfer of the categories of the Head Masters Gr.II, Gazetted School Assistants and SGTs and their equivalent categories. As per Rule-3 of the said Rules, there is a procedure prescribed for promotions. According to which for the selection posts the criteria is merit-cum-ability and for non-selection posts with criteria is merit-cum-fitness as provided under Rule-5 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Therefore, according to the said G.O. merit-cum-seniority list have to be prepared and all the promotions have to be in accordance with the said list. It is further submitted that in the year 2009, certain promotions were made for the posts of School Assistant (Maths) from its feeder category i.e., from SGT(maths). But unfortunately the promotions were made basing on the roster point ignoring the seniority fixed by the District Selection Committee on merit list basis and also contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.15 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Moreover, the 4th respondent who secured less marks than the petitioner was promoted to the post of School Assistant in the year 2009 without following merit-cum-seniority roster. In view of the same, the petitioner herein submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent brining