The state cannot apply service rules retrospectively to deny promotion to an employee whose services were regularised before the rules came into force, especially when such denial constitutes discriminatory treatment compared to similarly situated employees who were granted the same promotional benefits.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the lst respondent ie., the Commissioner of Endowments, AP, Hyderabad in not considering the case of the petitioner for further promotions by revising his seniority and re fixing the seniority on par with respondents 3 to 5 in conformity with the G.O.Ms.No.262, as bad, illegal, arbitrary, opposed to law

IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 42279 OF 2012

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY the promotions of respondents 3 to 5 to the posts of Assistant Commissioners of Endowments from Executive Officer, Grade-I by Respondent No. 1, pending disposal of the main writ petition

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to accept the additional material papers filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 33216 of 2012 in the interest of justice and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.M VIDYASAGAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.P V S S S RAMA RAO

2.M SURENDER RAO

3.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

1. This writ petition was allowed vide order dated 12.07.2024. W.A.1039 of 2024 was filed by the 1st respondent, and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court set aside the order passed by this Court and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing. The respondents were permitted to file a detailed counter on both facts and law for adjudication of the writ petition on merits.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as a Junior Assistant in the establishment of Sri Chandrasekhara Swamy Devasthanam, Ch. Agraharam, West Godavari District, was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 22.10.1994 in the same Devastanam. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to Sri Dhaneswai Ammavari Devastanam at Duvva Village, where he was promoted to the rank of Superintendent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer of the petitioner and the promotion extended to the post of Superintendent for the unofficial respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was in conformity with G.O.Ms.No.262, dated 20.05.2002. The service of the petitioner, along with respondent Nos.3 to 5 is in the same category as per the G.O.Ms.No.262. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 were extended promotions in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.262. However, when the issue of promotion for the petitioner was considered, G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000, was applied illogically. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s service benefits, which include promotion, were denied by the illogical application of G.O.Ms.No.888.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit along with additional material papers. It is submitted that the petitioner’s name is at serial No.11 in the provisional seniority list of Superintendents working in Zone-II as on 14.12.2021, indicating promotion to the cadre of Superintendent in other than the parental Institute. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the memos issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Endowments Department-Respondent No.1 dated 20.04.2013, whereby the issue