Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 802 (AP)

T. Someswara Rao v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust

2002-06-28

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2002
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Level I Tally Clerk on 1-7-1967 in the Visakhapatnam Port Trust. Thereafter, he was promoted as Level II Upgraded Tally Clerk on 1-11-1983, as Assistant Quay Forman on 3-7-1995 and as Quay Forman on 10-2-2000. Ultimately, he took voluntary retirement on 8-2-2001. The 3rd respondent who belongs to a reserved category, was appointed as Tally Clerk on 21-9-1982. He was promoted to the post of Upgraded Tally Clerk on 30-10-1983, as Assistant Quay Forman on 21-8-1987 and as Quay Forman on 1-8-1992. He was further promoted to the post of Dock Inspector on 18-9-1997 and Assistant Traffic Manager on 5-1-2001. ( 2 ) THE complaint of the petitioner is that though he was appointed almost 15 years prior to the 3rd respondent, he was denied the promotion to the post of Dock Inspector and Assistant Traffic Manager, while the 3rd respondent was promoted to those posts. According to the petitioner, even though the 3rd respondent was appointed against a reserved vacancy, his seniority at every level has to be maintained. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that though the petitioner and the 3rd respondent worked at initial two levels together, thereafter at every other level, the 3rd respondent got accelerated promotion on account of operation of reservation. It is stated that by the time the petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Assistant Quay Forman, the 3rd respondent was promoted as Quay Foreman and thereafter to other higher posts. ( 4 ) SMT. Padma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that once the petitioner is senior to the 3rd respondent at the time of initial appointment, his initial seniority ought to have been maintained at every level notwithstanding the fact that the 3rd respondent got the accelerated promotion on account of reservation. She relies upon the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in M. G. BADAPPANAVAR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA ( AIR 2001 SC 260 ). ( 5 ) SRI K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2-Corporation, on the other hand, submits that the principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme does not apply to the facts of the present case. There is absolutely no factual controversy in this case. ( 5 ) SRI K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2-Corporation, on the other hand, submits that the principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme does not apply to the facts of the present case. There is absolutely no factual controversy in this case. The dates of initial appointment as well as the subsequent promotions of the petitioner, on one hand, and that of the 3rd respondent, on the other, have been correctly furnished by the petitioner. The only controversy is as to whether the petitioner ought to have been promoted to the post of Dock Inspector, when the 3rd respondent, who is junior to him at the stage of initial recruitment, , was promoted to that post in the year 1997. The channels of promotion of candidates belonging to general category, on one hand, and those belonging to reserved category, on the other, are different and separate. While the general category candidate has to wait for his turn, the reserved category candidate will certainly get accelerated promotion on account of the roster point identified for the respective categories. When such is an uneven pace of the promotions, fixation of inter se seniority of the candidates in the superior posts, belonging to these two categories, at various levels does certainly pose problems. Having been faced with these situations, the Hon ble Supreme Court discussed the matter at length in several judgments. The matter is exhaustively explained and conclusively determined in BADAPPANAVAR case (supra ). Having noticed the possibility of the candidates belonging to reserved category earning promotions at an early date compared to their counter parts in the general category, the Hon ble Supreme Court laid down that irrespective of the fact that the reserved category candidates may have earned promotions to a particular level at an early date, if by the time the general category candidate reaches the same level, though at a later stage, the general category candidate, who was otherwise senior in the feeder category, shall be entitled to maintain the seniority. ( 6 ) THE following illustration may be helpful to understand the principle. Candidate a belonging to the general category was appointed to a particular post in the year 1990, whereas candidate b belonging to reserved category was appointed to the same post in the year 1993. ( 6 ) THE following illustration may be helpful to understand the principle. Candidate a belonging to the general category was appointed to a particular post in the year 1990, whereas candidate b belonging to reserved category was appointed to the same post in the year 1993. On account of reservations in the matter of promotions, b has earned promotion to level 2 post in 1995. It takes longer time for a to reach level 2 post; and let it be assumed that he earned the promotion in the year 1998. According to the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court, a will be entitled to claim seniority in the level 2 post against b , if by 1998 b remained in that post after earning promotion. However, if by the timea came to be promoted to level 2 post, B was promoted to a further superior post i. e. , level 3. A will not be entitled to claim seniority against b . ( 7 ) THIS is what exactly happened in this case. It is evident that the 3rd respondent came to be promoted to the post of Quay Forman on 1-8-1992, whereas the petitioner was promoted to that post on 10-2-2000. However, the 3rd respondent was promoted to the next higher post on 18-9-1997, which is 21/2 years, before the petitioner came to be promoted as Quay Forman. The petitioner could have claimed seniority in the post of Quay Foreman, the feeder post, to the post of Dock Inspector, if only, by 10-2-2000 the 3rd respondent remained in that category. It is not so. The 3rd respondent was promoted to the higher post in 1997 itself. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right over the 3rd respondent and the question of granting him any notional promotion or consequential benefits does not arise. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.