Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA, J
P. Kiranmai, Chittoor Dist. – Appellant
Versus
Prl Secy Rev Endw Dept – Respondent
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. Acc
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
