THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in promoting the petitioner as Controller/ADC on par with the unofficial respondents, who were promoted vide proceedings dated 04.04.2025, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri U. Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner herein is only claiming promotion on par with the unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 17 and he is not challenging their promotions whatsoever. As such, since no prejudice would be caused to the unofficial respondents, this matter is taken up for disposal without issuing any notice to them.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined the services of respondent Corporation as a Conductor during December, 1990, after undergoing due process of selection. Subsequently, his services were regularized, w.e.f., 31.12.1991. While so, respondent No.3 had called for records of the Conductors and Drivers eligible for promotion to the post of ADC/Controller, purely on the basis of seniority in the feeder cadre. Thereafter, a list of all eligible candidates was prepared vide Proc.No.P3/255(2)/2024.RM:MR dated 02.04.2025, wherein, out of the (21) individuals, the petitioner’s name was shown at Sl.No.2, and all the individuals were called for interview on 04.04.2025 at 11:00 AM. Accordingly, the petitioner attended the interview and was selected. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued the office order dated 04.04.2025, promoting only (19) individuals, including (15) Conductors and (4) Drivers, as ADC/Controllers. However, the petitioner’s name was not included in the said list in spite of his seniority and eligibility. Therefore, the said action of respondent No.3 is highly illegal and arbitrary.

4. It is submitted that upon enquiry, the petitioner was informed that he was not promoted due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings pursuant to charge sheet dated 20.12.2024, which pertain to the incidents occurred on 09.09.2022 and 25.09.2023. In response, the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 28.12.2024, denying the charges. However, no final orders were passed therein, much less, imposition of a punishment. As such, since the petitioner is maintaining a clean service without any punishments, preceding one year to the date of selection, i.e., 04.04.2025, in view of the instructions issued in Circular No.PD-10/2014 dated 06.03.2014 issued by respondent No.1, he is fully eligible for promotion to the post of ADC/Controller. Therefore, the petitioner submitted his representation to the office of respondent No.1 on 07.04.2025, which was duly forwarded to respondent No.2, who in turn, called for a report from respondent No.3. However, no report has been sent to respondent No.2 only with an oblique motive to deprive the petitioner of his rightful promotion. It is submitted that the petitioner made another representation to respondent No.3 on 12.04.2025, seeking promotion, as the pendency of disciplinary proceedings has nothing to do with the promotion post. However, despite acknowledging the receipt of the said representation, no action has been taken so far.

5. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 had earlier issued proceedings dated 02.02.2025, calling for records of (16) Conductors and (5) Drivers, thereby, intending to fill up (21) posts of ADC/Controller by way of promotion from the feeder category. However, only (19) individuals were given promotion as ADC/Controllers, and the remaining (2) posts are left unfilled, which were supposed to be filled in by the petitioner and one Md. A. Pasha, Driver, who failed to appear before the Selection Committee on 04.04.2025, for interview. It is further submitted that the respondents themselves had issued orders vide Proc.No.E2/255(2)/2024-HZ dated 26.06.2025, promoting one Mr. N. Ramakistaiah, Junior Assistant (F),