IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
K. Jagadeeshwara Rao, S/o. Late Parvateeswara Rao - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 21759 of 2020
Decided On : 23-03-2023
SENIOR ASSISTANT - SENIORITY - G.O.MS.NO.888, DATED 08.12.2000 - G.O.MS.NO.128, DATED 18.02.2011 - PROMOTION FROM RECORD ASSISTANT TO JUNIOR ASSISTANT - IRREGULAR BUT NOT ILLEGAL - SENIORITY TO BE RECKONED FROM DATE OF ACTUAL PROMOTION - RULE 39 OF THE RULES, PRESCRIBING QUALIFICATION, APPLIES TO THE PETITIONER - CONSIDERATION FOR PROMOTION TO EXECUTIVE OFFICER GRADE-II.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, initially appointed as Record Assistant, was promoted to Junior Assistant in 2004 and Senior Assistant in 2007. In 2020, the respondent refixed the petitioner's seniority in the Senior Assistant cadre from 28.03.2007 to 18.02.2014, relying on G.O.Ms.No.128, dated 18.02.2011, which created a promotion channel from Record Assistant to Junior Assistant. The petitioner challenged this refixing of seniority.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the promotion of the petitioner from Record Assistant to Junior Assistant in 2004, though irregular, was not illegal as it was made after completing the necessary service and there was a sanctioned post available. The court also held that Rule 39 of the Rules, prescribing qualification, applied to the petitioner. Therefore, the court directed the respondents to reckon the petitioner's seniority from the date of his promotion as Junior Assistant on 09.02.2004 and later as Senior Assistant on 28.03.2007.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistant is to be reckoned from 28.03.2007 or from 18.02.2014? 2. Whether Rule 39 of the Rules, prescribing qualification, would apply to the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the promotion of the petitioner from Record Assistant to Junior Assistant in 2004, though irregular, was not illegal as it was made after completing the necessary service and there was a sanctioned post available. The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narender Chadha v. Union of India, (1986) 2 SCC 157, which held that the period of continuous officiation following an appointment made in accordance with the rules prescribed for regular substantive appointments in the service should be counted towards seniority. 2. The court held that Rule 39 of the Rules, prescribing qualification, applied to the petitioner as it was necessary to determine the eligibility for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to reckon the petitioner's seniority from the date of his promotion as Junior Assistant on 09.02.2004 and later as Senior Assistant on 28.03.2007. The court also directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to Executive Officer Grade-II if he was otherwise eligible.
ORDER :
The above Writ Petition was filed seeking following relief :
2. The Petitioner was appointed as Record Assistant in Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Eluru, on 01.03.1993. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada fixed the cadre strength of Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Eluru by proceedings D.Dis.No.B5/16125/2001, dated 28.08.2001. The Cadre Strength approved by the Deputy Commissioner of the Temple is one Senior Assistant, one Junior Assistant, two Record Assistants and one Night Watchman. Petitioner’s service was regularized as Record Assistant with effect from 01.04.1999. The Cadre Strength was revised by proceedings D.Dis.No.B5/3234/2004, Adm, dated 08.02.2004.
3. Petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant on 09.02.2004. Thereafter, he was promoted as Senior Assistant on 28.03.2007. Petitioner, presently, is working as Senior Assistant. As per the Final Seniority List of Senior Assistants of Zone–II consisting of East Godavari, West Godavari and Krishna District, dated 22.04.2015, the petitioner’s name was shown at Sl.No.67.
4. Since the case of the petitioner was not considered for further promotion and juniors were promoted, he filed O.A.No.5508 of 2015 on the file of the Hon’ble APAT. Interim Orders were granted on 23.09.2015, directing the petitioner to submit representation. Petitioner submitted representation dated 06.10.2015 to the 2nd respondent. By Memo in Rc.No.E2/6589/2016-8, dated 21.02.2018, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there was no channel of promotion from Record Assistant to Junior Assistant in the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 2000, herein after referred to as ‘Rules’,. Channel was provided in the Rules by way of amendment as per G.O.Ms.No.128, dated 18.02.2011. As such, the petitioner cadre in the Junior Assistant was fixed from 18.02.2011 and promotion to Senior Assistant was reckoned from 18.02.2014 against actual promotion of Junior Assistant from 09.02.2004 and Senior Assistant from 28.03.2007, respectively.
5. The petitioner submitted representation dated 26.01.2019 to the Minister of Endowments along with other similarly placed persons to re-fix their seniority by considering the actual date of promotion as Junior Assistant, Senior Assistant and to appoint the petitioner as Executi
If the amalgamated institutions are found to be capable of being managed by themselves, the orders of amalgamation may be revoked by the Commissioner in the interest of proper management of administr....
The promotion of an employee without prior notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice, rendering such actions void and unenforceable.
The court established that promotions must adhere to seniority rules based on continuous service, invalidating promotions conducted without a proper inter-se seniority list.
The right to promotion and seniority under the Special Rules must be upheld, ensuring eligible candidates are prioritized over direct recruits.
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 p....
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.