IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
M.S.S.S. Venkata Rao, S/o Late Sri M.V. Rama Rao & another - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary, T (R&B) Department and another – Respondents
Writ Petition No.14326 of 2021
Decided On : 13-09-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer - Petitioners challenged the denial of promotion based on seniority, alleging arbitrary action by respondents - Court found the action of respondents illegal and arbitrary, directing consideration of petitioners for promotion in accordance with the seniority list. (Paras 9 and 10)
(B) Seniority - Principle of natural justice - The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the existing seniority list in promotion decisions, highlighting that ignoring seniority is arbitrary and unjust. (Paras 8 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers, claimed that their juniors were promoted while they were overlooked despite being eligible and having no pending disciplinary actions. They sought a writ to direct consideration for promotion based on seniority.
Findings of Court:
The court declared the respondents' actions illegal and arbitrary, ordering them to consider the petitioners for promotion based on the seniority list within eight weeks.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents' failure to consider the petitioners for promotion, despite their seniority, constituted a violation of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondents must adhere to the existing seniority list in promotion decisions, reinforcing the principle that arbitrary actions in administrative decisions are impermissible.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of.
ORDER :
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that initially they were appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers, through employment exchange, and subsequently they were regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.16 T(R&B) (Ser.III) Department, dated 16.12.2002. Later, the 1st petitioner went on deputation to APTDC and worked as Dy. ?.?. vide proceedings dated 21.6.2019. Thereafter, repatriated to R&B Department as AEE and due for promotion to the post of Dy. E.E. and no charge memo is pending against him as on today. It is the main grievance of the petitioners that Seniority List was issued by the 2nd respondent in the category of AEEs as per the said list, both the petitioners are came the zone of consideration for promotion. Further, the petitioners’ juniors were considered for promotion as Dy. E.E by ignoring the seniority of the petitioners, as well as the existing seniority. Therefore the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that the Government vide GO.Ms.No.82 T, R&B dated 25.2.2009 have issued an amendment to G.O.Ms.No.103 T, R&B Department, dated 22.5.1996, duly incorporating a proviso under Rule 3. Accordingly the panels for AEEs/AEs/D.Man fit for temporary promotion/appointment by transfer to the post of Dy.E.Es (R&B) Zone.I for the panel years 2010-2011 to 2012-2013 were approved. Subsequently, the Government in accordance with the judgments of APAT, have issued orders duly omitting the above provisos retrospectively with effect from 25.02.2009 vide G.O. Ms.No.67, TR&B dt.21.12.2018. As such, the earlier panels, which were approved while implementing the orders of impugned G.O. Ms. No.82 dated 25-02-2009 i.e., 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 in Zone.I are liable to be reviewed in terms of G.O. Ms No.67 dated 21.12.2018. It is further stated that, the panel years 2013-14 to 2020-21 were not conducted for the post of DEEs for want of amendments to the (R&B) Engineering Service Rules. Now, after issuance of amendments to (R&B) Engineering Service Rules vide G.O.Ms No.67 dated 21.12.2018, a necessity has arisen to review the panels for the years 2010-2011 to 2012-2013 and to conduct fresh panels of DEEs from 2013-14 to 2020-21 and accordingly, the Government was requested to issue permission for revision of earlier panels as well as for fresh panels. However, keeping in view of the time to be taken for getting requisite orders from the Govt., to the above extent and also keeping in view of the exigencies of services in the cadre of DEE in all Zones, the Government was requested to give necessary permission for placing certain AEEs / AEs and Draughtsman Grade-I employees in all Zones as in-charge DEEs, till receipt of requisite orders from the Government to the above effect. It is further stated that, the Government T(R&B) Dept, vide Memo No. RDBSOSERR (SER)/3/ 2021-SERVICES-RB, dated 20.04.202
Promotion decisions must adhere to established seniority lists to avoid arbitrary actions violating principles of natural justice.
Seniority in public service must be determined according to statutory rules, not solely based on length of service.
Established seniority lists must be adhered to unless timely objections are raised; age considerations alone do not override settled seniority.
Promotions on seniority-cum-merit basis require using final seniority list of feeder cadre from immediately preceding year; initial joining date irrelevant; non-speaking orders invalid; settled lists....
A writ petition becomes infructuous when the relief sought has already been granted, making further adjudication unnecessary.
The right to be considered for promotion is fundamental, but does not guarantee automatic promotion upon vacancy; effective grants govern promotion rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seniority of an employee in a promotion process should be considered in accordance with the relevant regulations, and any denial of rightf....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seniority list should be prepared based on the existing orders in force during the relevant period, and the court may consider revising se....
The court ruled that promotions cannot be indefinitely treated as ad-hoc, affirming the need for regularization and proper consideration for further promotions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.