Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3737
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J
N. Gurunadham – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 19508/2018
GADE VENKATESWARA RAO, NOOKA JAGANNADHAM, GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION (AP)
The court upheld the notional restoration of seniority for petitioners without monetary benefits, affirming the legality of the proceedings under the A P Cooperative Societies Act.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - A P Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 - Section 115 D(2)(iv) - Writ petition challenging the legality of proceedings issued by the Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society regarding seniority - Petitioners sought to be continued in service until the age of 60 years as per a General Body Resolution. (Paras 1, 4)
(B) Seniority - The court examined the promotion process and seniority restoration for Senior Assistants, noting that the promotions were initially based on 'Zone' rather than 'State' as the unit of appointment. (Paras 4a, 4b, 4c)
(C) Notional Seniority - The court upheld the decision to restore seniority notionally, clarifying that no monetary benefits would arise from this restoration. (Paras 4h)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the legality of proceedings that affected their seniority and sought to continue in service until the age of 60, as per a General Body Resolution.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners' seniority was restored notionally, but they were not entitled to any monetary benefits.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the proceedings affecting seniority and the petitioners' entitlement to continued service until the age of 60.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the restoration of seniority was valid but limited to notional status without monetary claims.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:
“…to issue an order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Proceedings Rc No No 840/ 2018C dated 21 6 2018 as illegal arbitrary unjust contrary to law and also contrary to Section 115 D 2 IV of the A P Cooperative Societies Act 1964 and the Govt Memo No 5825/ Coop III/20147 dated 23 5 2015 issued by the 1st respondent and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same consequently holding that the petitioner is entitled to be continued in service till the age of 60 years as per the Resolution of the General Body of the 4th respondent dated 31 3 2018 and pass…”
2. None represented for the petitioners.
3. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society on behalf of the respondents is in attendance.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society brought to the notice of this Court that proceedings were issued by the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society, Guntur, dated 28.10.2022 considering the case of the petitioners about their seniority and placed a copy of the same. For reference, the relevant portion of the proceedings is extracted here under:
Further in the reference 8th cited, the provisional seniority list of Senior Assistants and Junior Assistants were communicated duly inviting grievances if any. In the reference 9th cited, the said (03) Senior Assistants have represented to restore their Seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistants on par with their juniors in the feeder cadre and they are willing to take notional seniority only.
After careful examination of the above facts the following facts are considered:
a. As per the Service Rules of the APREI Society, the unit of appointment on promotion for the post of Senior Assistant is "State". But, during the year 2013, promotions were given by taking "Zone" as unit.
b. Thereby certain juniors in the cadre of Junior Assistant/Typists in the state wide seniority list were promoted to the post of Senior Assistant in their particular zone. Certain seniors in the cadre of Junior Assistant/Typists in the state wide seniority list could not get promotion due to non-availability of vacancies in that particular zone.
c. During the year 2017, the Society has again taken up promotions by taking "State" as single unit. At that time the said seniors in the feeder cadre were promoted to the post of Senior Assistant.
d. Further during the year 2018, the Seniority list of Senior Assistants was communicated to all the Principals duly placing the above Senior Assistants below to the Senior Assistants who were promoted in the year 2013 and who are juniors to them in the feeder cadre.
e. Aggrieved by this, the above applicants have approached the Hon'ble High Court of A.P to secure justice on their plea wide W.P No. 14272 of 2018.
Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court issued orders on 26-04- 2018 in which directed the respondents to consider the objection filed a fresh by the petitioners as per rules. In compliance to the orders of the Hon'ble High Cour, the above three applicants have submitted their representation dated 27-04-2018 with a request to restore their seniority on par with their juniors in the feeder cadre w.e.f., 21-01-2013 as per rules.
f. On examination, it is learnt that the individuals have submitted their grievances within the prescribed time limit as per the orders issued by the Government, in the reference 10th cited.
g. As per Rule 34 of A.P State & Subordinate Service Rules, the integrated Seniority list of a particular class, or category or grade in any seme belonging to different units of appointment shall be prepared with reference lo be drovisions of sub-rule (a) of rule 33, wherein the seniority of a p
