Retrospective promotion and consequential benefits are warranted when an employee is denied promotion based on a vigilance enquiry that is later found to be baseless, particularly when the administration fails to comply with court directions regarding the promotion process.

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 to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in 3rd respondent Devasthanam is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in 3rd respondent Devasthanam

IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 48526 OF 2013

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 direct the respondents to consider Petitioners case for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in 3rd respondent Devasthanam

The Court made the following:

Order:-

1. Sri Kondaveti Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Work Inspector in the office of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Endowments Department, Kurnool, in the year 1990. Thereafter, his services were absorbed in Kalahasti Swamyvari Devasthanam, Srikalahasti, where the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineer. The petitioner was subsequently transferred and posted to Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Srisailam, in the year 2006. The petitioner was eligible for further promotion as Deputy Executive Engineer at Srikalahasti, as there were two vacancies.

2. However, on account of the petitioner’s service at Srisailam, his case was not considered. Pursuant to his efforts to secure promotion, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 01.05.2011 to the 1st respondent to consider his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer at Srikalahasti. The said proposals were sent to the 1st respondent.

It is also submitted that the petitioner was repatriated to his parent institution at Srikalahasti from Srisailam, and ever since then the petitioner had been making efforts to secure promotion as he was fully entitled to.

The 3rd respondent had sent a proposal to the 1st respondent on 14.09.2009 and followed it up with a further representation dated 12.04.2012.

3. It is submitted that the respondents did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on account of some preliminary enquiry which was initiated against the staff of respondent Nos.2 and 3, including the petitioner. It is further submitted that no charge memo was issued to the petitioner and no full-fledged enquiry was conducted. However, the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 30.10.2024, has issued orders of promotion to the petitioner, and the said orders are placed before this Court. It is also stated that the 1st respondent had endorsed the work of the petitioner and that there were no allegations of misconduct or misappropriation, and as such the petitioner was not found at fault.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court, on 21.01.2014, passed an interim order directing the 1st respondent to consider the proposal sent by the 3rd respondent and communicate the decision to the 3rd respondent for further action. It is submitted that the respondents have remained silent for all t