Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
K.Narayana Murthy, S/o Veerabhadra Prasada Rao – Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Principal Secretary, MA and UD Department and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No: 21143 of 2020
Decided On : 30-04-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's qualifications and requests for promotions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. challenges regarding validity of degrees and promotions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's observations on legal standings and prior judgments. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. clarifications on degrees and implications for promotions. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. consideration of validation of degrees and restoration of advantages. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. rejection of petitioner's representation deemed unlawful. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 7. judgment allowing the writ petition. (Para 29) |
JUDGMENT :
Heard Sri V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Avinash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Ramesh, learned GP for Services – IV and Sri D. Kasim Saheb, learned standing counsel for Municipalities’ Services.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
“....(ii) to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in the cadre of Executive Engineer, (Public Health and Municipal Engineering Service), Vijayawada Municipal Corporation pending writ petition and grant such other reliefs...”
3. Sri V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, learned senior Advocate submitted that the petitioner K. Narayana Murthy, who was working as Work Inspector, Kakinada Municipality was appointed by transfer as Municipal Assistant Engineer (MAE) and allotted to the Office of the 3rd respondent/Superintendent Engineer (Public Health Circle), East Godavari District, Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide proceedings dated 15.05.1992 by the Engineer-in-Chief-2nd respondent. The academic qualification for appointment on the post of Municipal Assistant Engineer (MAE) was Diploma in Engineering, whereas for the post of Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer (MAEE), the academic qualification required was Degree in Engineering. The promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer are made from both the posts which serve as feeding cadre. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 20.06.2008 of Engineer-in- Chief, the petitioner was appointed by transfer as Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer (MAEE) based on Engineering Degree obtained by him from a deemed university and was posted to work with respondent No.4- Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. Later on, vide proceedings dated 26.06.2013 by Engineer-in-Chief, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (Dy.EE) from the feeding cadre post of Municipal Assistant Engineer. The Engineer-in-Chief circulated the provisional seniority list of Municipal Assistant Executive Engineers inviting objections, pursuant to which the petitioner submitted his objections, but the Engineer-in-Chief vide proceedings dated 24.07.2018 communicated the final seniority list of Deputy Executive Engineers, in which the name of V. Srinivas and Ch. Venkateswararao were shown at serial Nos.9 and 10, though they are juniors to the petitioner in the cadre of Municipal Assistant Engineer and the petitioner’s name was omitted, for which, the petitioner submitted representation dated 07.03.2019 to fix his seniority in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer after giving notional promotion on par with his juniors. As no action was taken on such representation, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 13748 of 2019 which was disposed of with direction to the respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the petitioner’s representation, vide judgment dated 17.09.2019. Pursuant there to the Respondent No.2 by the proceedings impugned, dated 23.10.2019, rejected the petitioner’s representation against which present Writ Petition No.21143 of 2020 is filed
The validation of engineering degrees obtained through distance education occurs upon passing the AICTE test, and promotions must reflect the original date of the degree, restoring status quo ante.
The obligation of the Corporation to restore the petitioner's position and grant all accrued benefits after the validation of his degree.
petitioners are not eligible as on the date of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case and their degrees are deemed to be suspended- petitioners are not entit....
If the respondents had extended any benefits and advantages in favour of the petitioners, then the question of restoring those benefits to the petitioners would not arise.
In-service candidates were given two chances to clear test/tests within stipulated timeframe and on doing so, all advantages/benefits would have to be restored to them with revival of degrees.
As per Recruitment and Promotion Rules, rightful claim of petitioner cannot be permitted to be defeated by respondents at this belated stage on grounds, as have been setup in reply.
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
