Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(AP) 1537

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
Y. Hema Durgamba – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and others – Respondent
WP No.15514 of 2021
Decided On : 03-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : D.V. Sasidhar
For the Respondent: K. Madhava Reddy (SC for Endowments AR), G.V. Shivaji, Government Pleader for Endowments

The promotion of an employee without prior notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice, rendering such actions void and unenforceable.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, and 21 - Writ of Mandamus - Challenging the action of authorities in promoting another employee without proper jurisdiction - Violation of principles of natural justice highlighted, as orders were issued without notice to affected parties - No evidence presented to support the illegal promotion claim. (Paras 6, 15 and 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, promoted from Junior Assistant to Superintendent, challenges the promotion of another employee, who was initially appointed as a Receptionist, to Junior Assistant and claims violation of seniority norms. The petitioner argues lack of jurisdiction and due process in the promotion proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The Court finds that the orders affecting seniority and promotions were issued in violation of principles of natural justice without affording a hearing to the affected parties, rendering them void and unenforceable.

Issues: The key issues addressed include whether the 4th respondent could be treated as Junior Assistant and if the promotion without adherence to due process was legally valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that any order affecting the rights of individuals must adhere to natural justice principles and cannot unsettle settled matters without proper consideration. The failure to challenge the Seniority List for over nine years further taints the promotion process as inappropriate.

Result: Writ petition disposed of; no orders as to costs.

Table of Content
1. writ petition for relief under article 226. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background of employee promotions and claims. (Para 3 , 4)
3. arguments concerning violation of natural justice. (Para 5 , 6 , 10 , 11)
4. court observations on principles of justice. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. final verdict and dismissal of the writ. (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT / ORDER :

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following relief :

"......to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings in Rc.No.A1/1102634/2020, dated 23.07.2021 allowing the claim of the 4th respondent to treat her as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 15.02.2012 and consequential promotion orders if any granted by the 3rd respondent as bad, illegal, arbitrary, absurd, abuse of power, void, violative of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequentially, set aside proceedings dated 23.07.2021 including the promotion orders granted if any by the 3rd respondent and direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to unsettle the settled things and pass..."

2. The case of the petitioner herein is that she was initially appointed as Junior Assistant, thereafter she was promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 2012 and finally she was promoted to the cadre of Superintendent in the year 2017 and she is presently working in the cadre of Superintendent in the 3rd respondent Devasthanam. The 4th respondent was initially appointed as Receptionist on NMR basis and thereafter she was permitted to be regularized as receptionist as per the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in D.Dis.No.A1/12309/05 dated 30.04.2005. Basing on the said proceedings, the then Executive Officer has issued proceedings in Rc.No.A1/6158/2004, dated 06.05.2005 regularizing the services of the 4th respondent as receptionist. Thereafter, the then Executive Officer has cancelled the 4th respondent regularization in the cadre of Receptionist basing on the G.O. Ms. No.1422, dated 25.07.2005 and basing on the note orders of the then Commissioner dated 23.12.2005 vide proceedings dated 30.12.2005. Aggrieved, by the same, the 4th respondent filed WP No.3719 of 2006 before this Court seeking continuation on regular basis and the said writ petition was allowed on 24.08.2017. Thereafter the 4th respondent has not submitted any applications or filed any appeals seeking conversion of Receptionist post as Junior Assistant or equivalent post as per Annexure-III of G.O. Ms. No.888 because there is no post of receptionist in the said rules. As such she continued as Receptionist.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that a Final Seniority List of Junior Assistants was prepared on 15.02.2012 including the name of the 4th respondent. The petitioner alongwith other Junior Assistants have objections that there is no receptionist post in the cadre strength or in the rules and she was not converted from receptionist to Junior Assistant, as such she is not eligible for promotion to the post of the Senior Assistant. The objections were rightly considered and Final Seniority List was approved, thereafter promotions were also issued excluding the 4th respondent. Later, in the year 2018, again the Seniority List was prepared and objections were submitted stating that the 4th respondent was appointed as receptionist only in the time scale of Junior Assistant, but her duties are not that of Junior Assistant. As such her claim was rejected by the then Executive Officer in Memo in Rc.No.Al/3474/2016 dated 12.07.2018. This order was not challenged by the 4th respondent, neither she has obtained any orders to consider her case as Junior Assistant from the date of initial appointment in WP No.3719 of 2006 dated 24.08.2017. By the time, when the rejection proceedings dated 12.07.2018 were passed, the 4th respondent was having knowl