Promotion in non-selection posts must adhere to seniority without subjective merit evaluations in the absence of unsuitability, reinforcing equality rights under the Constitution.

ORDER :

1. The case of the petitioner, as per the writ affidavit, is that he was appointed as a Junior Stenographer in the respondent corporation on 18.07.1981 and joined duty on 20.07.1981, holding qualifications of Bachelor of Commerce and a Diploma in Commercial Practice, and later completing his Degree in Law during 1984-85. He was promoted as Senior Stenographer on 13.08.1985 with effect from 12.08.1985. By proceedings dated 15.04.1988, the post of Senior Stenographer was converted into Junior Assistant, and he was accordingly placed in that cadre from that date. He was then promoted as Senior Assistant by proceedings dated 25.02.1992 with effect from 31.01.1990, and his probation in that post was declared satisfactorily completed on 24.02.1993. A Common Inter-Se Seniority List dated 31.03.1995 placed him at Serial No. 19 in the cadre of Senior Assistants/Accountants, showing his date of joining that cadre as 31.01.1990. In 1997, the cadre of Senior Assistants/Accountants was re-designated as Assistant Manager with effect from 07.11.1997, while the existing Assistant Manager post became Deputy Manager and Deputy Manager became Manager. Promotions from Assistant Manager to Deputy Manager, and from Deputy Manager to Manager, were non-selection posts to be filled strictly on the basis of seniority.

1.1 It is stated that promotions to the post of Deputy Manager were effected in the year 1999, but despite his seniority, the petitioner was overlooked. By proceedings dated 23.04.1999, the respondent corporation promoted his juniors Tulsidas, J. Venkata Rao, and V. Satyanarayana, who were placed at Serial Nos. 21, 30, and 33 respectively in the seniority list dated 31.03.1995, while the petitioner stood at Serial No. 19. He submitted representations to the respondent corporation requesting protection of his seniority and promotion on par with his juniors, but while those representations were pending, several other juniors—K. Vikram Reddy (Serial No. 22), M. Swaraj Kumar (Serial No. 20), K. Sumathi Devi (Serial No. 23), R. Jayaram (Serial No. 27), M. Katyayini (Serial No. 29), and S.V.G.K. Murthy (Serial No. 31)— approached the High Court by filing W.P. No. 17945 of 1999 challenging the same promotion process. By order dated 29.12.2008, the High Court allowed that writ petition, declared the writ petitioners therein to be seniors to the promotees, and directed the respondent corporation to promote them to the post of Deputy Manager with effect from the dates on which their juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits. The Court held that promotions should be effected on the basis of seniority- cum-merit and found the corporation’s procedure to be contrary to law, relying on W.A. No. 1431 of 1987 dated 27.12.1994 and the Supreme Court judgment reported in B.V. Sivaiah vs. K. Addanki Babu , (1998) 6 SCC 720 . Following that judgment, the respondent corporation promoted K. Vikram Reddy, K. Sumathi Devi, R. Jayaram, and M. Katyayini—who are arrayed as Respondent Nos. 2 to 5—to the post of Deputy Manager, but, according to the petitioner, the Corporation continued to deny him similar treatment. Respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were promoted with effect from 23.04.1999, Respondent No. 5 with effect from 03.09.2007, and even another junior, N. Rama Reddy, placed at Serial No. 34, was promoted as Deputy Manager on 22.09.2007. Further, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were promoted as Managers on 13.10.2009. The petitioner emphasizes that in the lower feeder post as well, he was senior: he joined as Junior Stenographer on 20.07.1981, whereas K. Vikram R