Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. SUJATHA, J.
P. Kiranmai, Chittoor Dist. - Petitioner
Versus
Prl Secy Rev Endw Dept and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2813 Of 2015
Decided On : 20-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorari - Seniority dispute in public service - Petitioner, a graduate, challenged her reversion from Senior Assistant to Junior Assistant based on revised merit list after discrepancies in marks were identified - Court held that seniority must follow the merit list as per the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, and the revision was valid as it adhered to due process. (Paras 1, 4, 16)
(B) Seniority - Determination of seniority in public service must be based on merit and must follow the established rules without arbitrary alterations after a significant lapse of time. (Paras 12, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant and later promoted to Senior Assistant. Following a representation by the 3rd respondent, her seniority was revised based on recalculated marks, leading to her reversion. The petitioner contended this was improper and violated natural justice.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the revision of seniority was conducted following proper procedures and was justified based on merit. The petitioner’s reversion was upheld as valid.
Issues: The main issues were whether the revision of seniority was justified and if the petitioner had a legal right to contest the reversion after a significant time lapse.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the seniority must be determined based on merit as per the applicable rules, and the revision was valid as it followed due process. The petitioner did not have a legal right to challenge the revision after such a delay.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
(V. SUJATHA, J.)
This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
“….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for all the connected records including the impugned proceedings in Roc.No.E2/11921/2011 dated 04.02.2015 and to quash the same as illegal and improper, and further declaring that I am the senior to the third respondent as per the marks obtained in the degree either by excluding the Indian Heritage and Culture and Science and Civilization or including the Indian Heritage and Culture and Science and Civilization by following the uniform policy and pass...”
2. The petitioner herein is a graduate in Bachelor of Arts from Sri Venkateswara University with 82.4% marks and belongs to Scheduled Caste category. In pursuance of a notification issued by the 2nd respondent on 27.03.2008 for filling up the post of Junior Assistant meant for SCs, the petitioner has applied for the same and after due process of selection, the petitioner was given appointment order vide proceedings dated 23.01.2009 and was selected against roster point No.22/5. Accordingly, the petitioner has joined in the said post on 31.01.2009 and subsequently, her probation was declared by the 2nd respondent management vide memo dated 15.10.2012 in the cadre of Junior Assistant with effect from 31.01.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner has also acquired eligibility for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant by qualifying in the prescribed tests.
3. While the matter stood thus, basing upon the seniority list prepared at the time of petitioner’s appointment, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 23.11.2012 has promoted the petitioner herein as Senior Assistant and has posted the petitioner to Services Wing (Technical); pursuant to which the petitioner has joined in the said post on 24.11.2012. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has issued a notice dated 08.11.2013 wherein it is stated that based on a representation submitted by the 3rd respondent, the recruitment cell of the 2nd respondent temple has verified all the testimonials and marks memos of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein who were appointed as junior assistants under limited recruitment vide proceedings dated 23.01.2009 and that the percentage of marks secured in their bachelor degrees were calculated and the mistake occurred previously was rectified, as a result of which the seniority of directly recruited junior assistants has been revised duly placing the name of 3rd respondent above the petitioner herein. Stating thus, the respondent 2nd respondent has sought for objections from the candidates, if any, pursuant to which the petitioner herein has submitted her objections vide letter dated 26.11.2013 wherein the petitioner has submitted as under:
“My seniority has been revised on the grounds that my percentage of marks of Degree examination is less than to the percentage of Smt. K. Archana, Jr. Assistant which has been calculated by excluding the marks of Indian Heritage & Culture and Science & Civilization of Smt. K. Archana, Jr. Assistant and including the same subject marks of myself which is not correct.
In this regard, I am to submit that, the percentage of Smt. K. Archana, Jr. Assistant is calculated (excluding the subject marks of Indian Heritage & Culture and Science & Civilization) as 82.6% and my percentage is calculated (including the same subject marks) as 82.4% which is contrary to the natural justice…”
4. After obtaining clarification from the controller of examinations of the respective universities of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein, the 2nd respondent has issued proceedings dated 04.02.2015 reverting the petitioner herein from the post of Senior Assistant to Junior Assistant on the ground that the 3rd respondent secured 82.59% whereas the petitioner has secured 82.38%. As per Rule 33(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordin
The court upheld that seniority in public service must be determined based on merit and established rules, allowing for revisions when discrepancies are identified.
The court established that seniority must be determined by the date of first appointment, and settled seniority cannot be revised after a significant delay.
The promotion of an employee without prior notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice, rendering such actions void and unenforceable.
Seniority in public service must follow the order of merit per category, prohibiting inter-category comparisons, and claims made after inordinate delay are unsustainable.
Seniority in public service must be determined by the date of first appointment, not by roster points, as per statutory rules.
Candidates wrongfully excluded from appointments are entitled to notional seniority from the date they should have been appointed, correcting delays caused by administrative latches.
General category candidates senior in feeder cadre regain inter se seniority over earlier promoted reserved category roster-point promotees in higher cadre via catch-up rule, absent rules for consequ....
Fraud in evaluation nullifies the validity of the selection process, allowing for judicial intervention despite delays in challenging seniority.
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....
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
