Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, HARINATH N., JJ.
Anem Veera Raju and Others - Petitioners
Versus
The High Court Of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.9620 Of 2023
Decided On : 04-10-2024
Promotion - Stenographer - Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules - The court interpreted the rules regarding seniority and promotion, emphasizing that seniority is determined by the date of initial appointment, which influenced the decision to uphold the reversion of the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were promoted to Stenographer Grade-II but were reverted to Grade-III based on seniority disputes with direct recruits. They challenged the reversion and sought restoration of their positions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were temporarily promoted and their seniority was correctly determined based on the initial appointment dates of all parties involved, leading to the conclusion that the reversion was justified.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to be restored as Stenographer Grade-II and whether their reversion was lawful based on seniority rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that seniority must be determined by the date of initial appointment, and since the direct recruits were appointed earlier, they were senior to the petitioners.
Result: The Writ Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(R. Raghunandan Rao, J.) :
Heard Sri M. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.S.P Suresh Kumar and C.R. Kalyan, learned counsel for respondents.
2. The 1st petitioner was appointed as an attender in the year 1988 and 2nd petitioner was appointed as attender in the year 2001. In the course of their service, they were promoted from time to time. The details of these would not be necessary for the purposes of this writ petition. It would suffice to start with the promotion of the petitioners as Stenographer Grade-III by the 2nd respondent-District Judge, by proceedings in PR.No.5 of 2017 dated 03.02.2017. After a period of two years, the petitioners were further promoted as Stenographer Grade-II, by proceedings in PR.No.32 of 2019 dated 18.05.2019 by the 2nd respondent. Subsequently, proceedings bearing PR.No.28 and 29, dated 13.02.2020 were issued regularizing the services of the 1st petitioner as Stenographer Grade-II and his probation was also declared under Rule 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial and Subordinate Service Rules, 2019. At that stage, the 2nd respondent again issued proceedings dated 21.03.2020 reverting both the petitioners to the post of Stenographer Grade-III. Aggrieved by the said order of reversion, the petitioners approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.8436 of 2020, which came to be allowed, on 13.08.2020, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, and the matter was remanded back to the 2nd respondent.
3. It is contended that the petitioners came to know, during the pendency of the above writ petition, on account of the papers served on them, that they had been reverted on the representation of the 3rd respondent to the 1st respondent who had directed the 2nd respondent by order, dated 14.03.2020, to revert the petitioners. Upon coming to know these facts, the petitioners moved W.P.No.19674 of 2020 questioning the proceedings, dated 14.03.2020, of the 1st respondent. This Court set aside the said proceedings, dated 14.03.2020, by an order dated 13.08.2020.
4. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners moved the 2nd respondent, by way of a representation, dated 21.08.2020, for restoring them as Stenographer Grade-II. The 2nd respondent issued a notice, dated 28.09.2020, to the petitioners, to show cause why they should not be reverted from the category of Stenographer Grade-II to the Stenographer Grade-III. After receiving the reply of the petitioners, the 2nd respondent again issued a notice dated 01.11.2021 granting personal hearing to the petitioners on 06.11.2021. In a parallel proceeding, the 2nd respondent issued a gradation list of Grade-II and Grade-III Stenographers on 30.12.2021 in which the names of the petitioners were not included in the list of Stenographers Grade-II while the name of the 3rd respondent was included.
5. As their request for being promoted to Grade-II was not being considered, further representations were made by the petitioners for restoration of their seniority. As no orders were being passed, the petitioners again filed W.P.No.7271 of 2022 questioning the inaction of the 2nd respondent, in restoring the petitioners, as Stenographers Grade- II. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court, on 10.08.2022, with a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders within six weeks. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent issued a fresh notice dated 06.10.2022, and after considering the response of the petitioners and detailed brief submitted on 14.10.2022, had issued proceedings dated 21.10.2022 holding that the earlier proceedings dated 21.03.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent reverting the petitioners to the post of Stenographer Grade-III holds good.
6. The petitioners being aggrieved by these proceedings, as well as the issuance of the gradation list, approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition, for setting aside to orders of the 2nd
Seniority among employees is determined by the date of initial appointment, not by the completion of probation.
The court established that promotions must adhere to seniority rules based on continuous service, invalidating promotions conducted without a proper inter-se seniority list.
Established seniority lists must be adhered to unless timely objections are raised; age considerations alone do not override settled seniority.
Delayed claims in service matters can unsettle settled positions, making them unmaintainable without necessary parties involved.
An employee cannot be denied promotion and seniority due to the unjustified delay on the part of the government.
The promotion of an employee without prior notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice, rendering such actions void and unenforceable.
Promotion from Record Assistant to Junior Assistant, though irregular, was not illegal as it was made after completing the necessary service and there was a sanctioned post available. The period of c....
The seniority of employees must be determined in accordance with the specific rules governing seniority, and cannot be fixed based on roster points.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to direct the second respondent to pass necessary orders for the fixation of correct seniority on par with S. Shanmugam in th....
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
