Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
D.V.V.G.K Prasad – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 35392 Of 2022
Decided On : 23-08-2024
Promotion - Seniority - A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules - The court interpreted Rule 36(III) regarding seniority based on age when probation commencement dates are the same, concluding that the petitioner's claims were not substantiated due to established seniority lists.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the promotion of two colleagues to Senior Assistants, claiming seniority based on age and date of regularization, while the respondents argued that established seniority lists were not contested by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the promotions were based on settled seniority lists and that the petitioner had not objected to these lists in a timely manner, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to be treated as senior to the respondents based on age and the proper application of seniority rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that established seniority lists, which were not challenged by the petitioner, take precedence over claims based on age when promotions were granted.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed.
ORDER :
(K. Manmadha Rao, J.) :
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
2. The precise case of the petitioner is that petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 were appointed as Computer Operators in the establishment of 3rd respondent temple in 2001. Thereafter, their services were regularized on 11.07.2011 as Computer Operators in the cadre of Record Assistants. As they were regularized on the same day, the age has to be taken into consideration for fixing the seniority among them, but the same could not be done by the respondents. As per their date of births, the petitioner shall be the senior among the respondents 4 and 5. Further, the provisional seniority list of record assistants was issued vide Memo dated 21.07.2018, wherein the petitioner was shown at Sl.No. 25 and respondents 4 and 5 are shown at 23 and 24, for which the petitioner has no objection, since charge memo was pending against the petitioner by that time and was not eligible for promotion. Thereafter, the promotions were granted to the respondents 4 and 5 as Junior Assistants vide proceedings dated 17.02.2019 by the 3rd respondent. Subsequently an enquiry was conducted by the 3rd respondent pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 21.06.2021 in W.P.No.11102 of 2021 and thereafter charges were dropped by the Executive Officer vide proceedings 31.07.2021. Later the petitioner made a representation dated 12.08.2021 requesting to grant promotion on par with his juniors in the cadre of Junior Assistant, but the 3rd respondent issued promotion as Junior Assistant vide proceedings dated 22.08.2021 with effect from 22.08.2021. In spite of several representations made by the petitioner, the respondents did not take action to treat as senior over above respondents 4 and 5.
3. While the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 09.09.2022 sanctioning three additional posts of Senior Assistants to the 3rd respondent/ temple. Thereafter the respondents 4 and 5 were granted promotions for Senior Assistants vide proceedings dated 12.09.2022 by the 3rd respondent, hence the petitioner made a representation dated 18.10.2022 to grant him promotion on par with his juniors and treat him as Senior, but in vain. But without issuing provisional seniority list or final seniority list in the cadre of the Junior Assistants the promotions granted to the respondents 4 and 5, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition and requested to allow the same.
4. Heard Mr. D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Padmavathi Padnavis, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent and Mr. V.Venugopal Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr.Sambasiva Prathap Evana, learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5.
5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents urged in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the 3
Established seniority lists must be adhered to unless timely objections are raised; age considerations alone do not override settled seniority.
The promotion of an employee without prior notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice, rendering such actions void and unenforceable.
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....
A writ petition becomes infructuous when the relief sought has already been granted, making further adjudication unnecessary.
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....
The court established that objections against provisional seniority lists must be considered prior to finalization, affirming principles of fairness and the inapplicability of ad hoc promotions for s....
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
