IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION NO : 23033 of 2006
DATE: 30.06.2010
Between:
N. Lakshmipathi Rao,S/o.Sreeramulu, Aged 44 years, Occ: Dy. Executive Engineer (PR) O/o.the Panchayat Raj Sub-Division Tirumalipalem, HQs Khammam, Khammam District . PETITIONER AND 1 A, Srinivasulu S/o.Ramaswamy Aged 53 yrs., working as Asst. Executive Engineer Panchayat Raj Sub Division, Bhumdevpally, Karimnagar Division, Karimnagar & others . RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No : 23033 of 2006
ORDER (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed):
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to order dated 03-12-2003 passed in OA No.8080 of 1997 by the Andhra Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.
2. This writ petition is filed by obtaining leave of the Court as the petitioner is not a party to the OA. The applicant-1st respondent herein filed the OA questioning the provisional seniority list dated 03-10-1996 of Assistant Executive Engineers in Zone V and G.O.Ms.No.186, dated 28.04.1996 as being illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside them in so far as they relax the General Rules 24 (c) and 26 of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules and Special Rule 6 of AP Panchayat Raj Engineering Service Rules in favour of the unqualified probationers whose probation ought to have been extended and consequently direct the official respondents to fix the seniority of Assistant Executive Engineers in Zone V strictly applying General Rule 24 (c) and Special Rule 6 and effect promotions accordingly.
3. It was stated that he was directly recruited as Assistant Executive Engineer and appointed in service on 24-01-1986 and his probation was also declared to be satisfactory as he has passed the required test for being promoted to the next higher post in the year 1989 itself, but the official respondents, without following General and Special Rules have issued provisional seniority list dated 03-10-1996 and have placed several directly recruited Assistant Executive Engineers of the years 1985, 1986 and 1989 above the applicant, without extending their probation. When he made a representation to the official respondents to rectify the defect in the provisional seniority list but, no action had been taken. Apart from this, the applicant had also submitted a representation to withdraw GO Ms.No.186 granting relaxation of the said General and Special Rules, but in vain.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
5. The 1st respondent-applicant is a direct recruit in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and his probation was declared to be satisfactory and he had passed the required tests for promotion to the next higher post in the year 1989, itself whereas the petitioner herein appeared the departmental test on 15-12-1989 and the result could not be announced till 17-1-1991. Admittedly, the petitioner had written the examination in December, 1989 by which time the applicant had already passed the required tests for promotion to the next higher post. GO Ms.No.186 was issued on 28-4-1996 granting relaxation of passing the departmental test and it is observed by the Tribunal that such relaxation was done in case of Assistant Executive Engineers, who passed the Accounts Test belatedly. The employees who have passed the required tests for promotion to the next higher grade within the time stipulated, will have to be considered first for promotion and the employees who do not pass the tests within the prescribed time, cannot be considered for promotion over and above those who are fully qualified. Apart from this, the official respondents issued G.O.Ms.No.186 granting relaxation of passing the Accounts Test and the said GO was issued on 28-4-1996 and the relaxation granted has to be prospective in operation and such relaxation cannot be granted to defeat the existing right of the applicant in OA. In these circumstances, the impugned order does not call for any interference in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.
30th July, 2010. Nrg