Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
E. Saritha & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 11229 of 2022
Decided On : 22-08-2022
SERVICE LAW - PROMOTION - RULE 6(B) OF THE STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES - INTERPRETATION - WORD 'ORDINARILY' - MEANING AND SCOPE - DELAYED SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS - RELAXATION OF EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS - APPLICABILITY TO PETITIONERS - ENTITLEMENT TO RELIEF.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, Agricultural Extension Officers Gr-II (AEO Gr-II), completed their B.Sc. (Agriculture) as in-service candidates and submitted certificates for consideration of their names for promotion to Agricultural Officer (AO). However, their names were not included in the seniority list for promotion on the ground that they submitted their certificates after 1st September, 2020, the qualifying date as per Rule 6(b) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the word 'ordinarily' in Rule 6(b) is not mandatory and can be interpreted depending on the situation and exigencies. The Court also held that the proviso to Rule 6(b) and sub-Rule 6g(ii) allow for the inclusion of candidates who have subsequently acquired the required qualifications in the panel for promotion.
Issues: 1. Whether the word 'ordinarily' in Rule 6(b) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules is mandatory or can be interpreted depending on the situation and exigencies? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought, considering the delayed submission of their documents and the relaxation of educational qualifications for other candidates?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the word 'ordinarily' in Rule 6(b) as meaning 'normally' and held that there can always be exceptions. The Court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Kailash Chandra v. Union of India to support its interpretation. 2. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the relief sought, considering the relaxation of educational qualifications for other candidates and the fact that they had acquired the required educational qualification.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for AO promotion on par with those who got promoted as AOs in October 2020 and also on par with the writ petitioners in W.P. No. 25660 of 2020.
JUDGMENT
Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-
'...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No. AMP/1920/2018-NZ, dated 06.06.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent by imposing terms and conditions viz. (i) his Annual Increment be deferred for a period of ONE Year with cumulative effect on future increments (ii) The period from the date of removal from service till the date of joining duty is treated as Not On Duty for all purposes as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the rules and law on the subject and set aside the punishment of deferment of annual increment and consequently direct the Respondents to give continuity of service with all back wages service benefits attendant benefits and all monetary benefits by treating the suspension and removal period of the petitioner from 10.7.2013 to 06.6.2018 as on duty with all consequential and attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders.......'
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are working as Agricultural Extension Officers Gr-II (AEO Gr-II and being appointed on 24.11.2012 and 24.01.2013 respectively. The post of AEO Gr-II is feeder category for being promoted as Agricultural officer (AO) and for being promoted as AO the in-service AEO should complete B.Sc. (Agriculture). Both the petitioners have done their B.Sc. (Agriculture) as in-service candidates and completed it by September, 2020. In the same academic year, six petitioners in W.P. No. 25660 of 2020 have also completed their B.Sc. (Agriculture) along with the petitioners by September, 2020. Upon successful completion of petitioners' B.Sc. (Agriculture), both they, including said petitioners in W.P. No. 25660 of 2020, through proper channel, submitted certificates along with individual requests/representations dated 18.9.2020 and 21.09.2020 respectively for consideration of their names to be included in seniority list prepared with eligible candidates for promoting them as AOs. But arbitrarily and discriminatively besides contrary to Rules-5 (c), 6(b) etc. of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, all the petitioners names, including the names of the said petitioners in W.P. No. 25660 of 2020, were not included in seniority list in order to consider all their candidatures for AO promotion on the pretext of submitting their certificates after 1st September, 2020. Aggrieved by the same, all of those six AEOs, approached this Court by way of fling the above said W.P. No. 25660 of 2020 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.08.2021. Since the petitioners have submitted their representations to the 2nd respondent for consideration of their candidatures for AO promotion, but there is no response. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents till today and adjourning the matter for filing counter affidavit, again learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents sought time for filing counter affidavit. It appears that the respondents did not choose to file counter affidavit and failed to comply with the Rule 12(1) of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977. Following the decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 'J. Ramachandraiah Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others' (2012) 4 ALD 366 this Court finds that the respondents violated the Rule 12 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977. Therefore, this Court without expecting counter affidavit by the respondents, decided to dispose of the matter.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Agriculture & Cooperation appearing for the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the candidatures of the petitioners for Agricultural Officer (AO) promotion in Zone-IV along with those who got promoted in Octo
The word 'ordinarily' in Rule 6(b) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules is not mandatory and can be interpreted depending on the situation and exigencies.
The qualifying date under Rule 6(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 is not mandatory and can be interpreted flexibly, allowing for exceptions in certain circumstances,....
Accrued benefits on the employee prior to the changing of the Rule cannot be denied. The right accrued on the employees cannot be denied due to the wrong application of the Rule.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of seniority as a civil right and highlights the need to rectify mistakes committed by the official respondents in matters of seniority.
The period of continuous officiation after appointment has to be taken into account for determining seniority, and where an appointment was made by way of a stopgap arrangement, the experience on suc....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the eligibility and training status of candidates for promotion, as well as the authority's discretion in promotin....
Seniority once settled cannot be unsettled after a long delay, and an order given in ignorance of the terms of a Statute or a rule having the force of Statute is per incuriam.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
