Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, K. MANMADHA RAO, JJ.
Shaik Ahmmad, S/o. Bade Saheb - Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., School Education Dept. & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 21489 of 2012
Decided On : 18-08-2023
G.O.Ms.No.400 - Promotion Dispute - 400 - Summary: The petitioner sought promotion to the post of Headmaster, Grade-II, challenging the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (A.P.A.T) in O.A.No.770 of 2010. The dispute arose from the promotion of the respondents 5 to 8 as LFL Headmasters in the cadre of School Assistants, while the petitioner, a Senior Grade Teacher (SGT) working in a High School, was not considered for promotion. The court found that the petitioner's claim for notional promotion with effect from 21.06.1998 was not belated and that the authorities failed to communicate the opportunity for promotion to the petitioner, despite promoting SGTs working in High Schools. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to notional promotion and seniority from the date his juniors were promoted, and directed the authorities to consider his case for promotion to the post of Headmaster, Grade-II.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Grade Teacher (SGT) working in a High School, sought promotion to the post of Headmaster, Grade-II, challenging the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (A.P.A.T) in O.A.No.770 of 2010.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim for notional promotion with effect from 21.06.1998 was not belated and that the authorities failed to communicate the opportunity for promotion to the petitioner, despite promoting SGTs working in High Schools.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to promotion to the post of Headmaster, Grade-II, despite being a SGT working in a High School, while his juniors were promoted as LFL Headmasters in the cadre of School Assistants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to notional promotion and seniority from the date his juniors were promoted, as the authorities failed to communicate the opportunity for promotion to the petitioner, despite promoting SGTs working in High Schools.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, and directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Headmaster, Grade-II, within three months from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Heard Sri Maganti Sai Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education for the respondents 1 to 4. No representation for the respondents 5 to 8.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order passed by Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short the A.P.A.T) in O.A.No.770 of 2010, dated 22.03.2012, with further direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Headmaster, Grade-II, before promoting the unofficial respondents after reckoning the petitioner’s seniority and promotion as Low Female Literacy (for short, LFL) Headmaster/School Assistant with effect from 21.06.1998.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 01.02.1984 and obtained 16 years automatic timescale on 31.01.2000. He worked in various Elementary Schools and High Schools as SGT. He was promoted as School Assistant (SA) Telugu on 04.03.2006. The respondent No.5 was appointed as SGT on 01.04.1984 and was junior to the petitioner. The respondent Nos.6 to 8 were also appointed in 1985-86 and they were also juniors. The SGT is a District Cadre post. Combined seniority list of SGTs in Primary School and High School, is prepared at District level. In the seniority of SGT(s) in Prakasam District, the respondents 5 to 8 were at Sl.Nos.388, 389, 391 and 392 respectively, junior to the petitioner.
4. The 1st respondent-State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.400 Edu (PRO G-I) Department dated 05.12.1997 creating new post of Head Masters in 10,647 Primary Schools in the year 1997-98 in LFL areas in the cadre of School Assistants, with an objective to increase the literacy in female in the State. The G.O. Ms.No.400, inter alia provided that the SGT working in the primary schools are eligible for the post of LFL Head Master in Primary Schools. The respondents 5 to 8, juniors to the petitioner were promoted as LFL Headmaster in the cadre of School Assistant on 21.06.1998, only on the ground that they were working in Elementary Schools/Primary Schools. The petitioner was not so promoted as he was SGT working in High Schools. Later on the petitioner was promoted as School Assistant on 04.03.2006. In the cadre of School Assistant the name of the petitioner did not find place, in the combined seniority list of School Assistant-LFL Headmaster, although the seniority list contained 639 candidates and the last candidate’s promotion date was 05.03.2006 whereas the petitioner was promoted on 04.03.2006. As a result there of the petitioner was deprived of further promotion to the post of Headmaster, Grade-II in High Schools.
5. Raising the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner filed the O.A.No.707 of 2010 to declare the G.O.Ms.No.400 dated 05.12.1997 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India with further consequential relief.
6. The respondents filed counter affidavit and opposed the O.A inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was appointed and joined as S.GT on 01.02.1984 working in Mandal Parishad Primary Schools and in Zilla Parishad High Schools with effect from 14.08.1991. Subsequently, in promotion counselling held in 2005 he was promoted as School Assistant with effect from 03.07.2006 and ever since he has been working as School Assistant (Telugu). It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not appear in the counselling for promotion for LFL Headmaster conducted many times including the names of the Secondary Grade Teachers working in High Schools also. The claim of the petitioner seeking notional promotion with effect from 21.06.1998 is highly belated after more than 12 years, which suffered from delay and laches.
7. The A.P.A.T rejected the O.A vide judgment dated 22.03.2012 on the ground that the claim of the petitioner was hit by dela
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, and delay or laches in approaching the court/Tribunal may not always be considered as fatal to the legitimate claim of the aggrieved p....
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....
Point of Law : Education Officer (Secondary) can exercise jurisdiction to determine any inter se dispute as regards seniority that has been referred to him under Rule 12(3) of the said Rules till suc....
Promotion is not a vested right and an employee only has the right to be considered for promotion.
Rule 44 reads as appointment of Headmasters shall ordinarily be according to seniority from the seniority list prepared.
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
