Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1065 (AP)

Jagjeevan Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2014-08-25

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, L.N.REDDY

body2014
JUDGMENT : L.N. Reddy, J. 1. The writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in WP No. 18186 of 2003. The writ petition was filed questioning the inaction on the part of the respondents in including his name in the seniority list, dated 26.6.2003, for the post of Senior Assistant, in the context of promotion to the post of Superintendent against 50% quota. Consequential direction was also prayed for. The appellant was initially appointed as Contact Programmer, in the University College of Education, on 27.11.1979, on being selected. He was also placed in the regular pay scale, in the year 1981. On 9.6.1995, he was appointed as Senior Assistant with effect from 1.4.1991, on account of completion of 10 years in the feeder category. Another special benefit was extended to him in the same post of Senior Assistant, on completion of 16 years of service. 2. The promotion from the post of Senior Assistant is to the post of Superintendent, to the extent of 50% vacancies. The name of the appellant was not included in the list of Senior Assistants, in this context. Therefore, he prayed for the relief mentioned above. 3. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the writ petition. Their case was that the appellant was not promoted to the post of Senior Assistant, on regular basis, and it was only an upgradation on completion of particular length of service. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition through order, dated 29.6.2005. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education for respondent No. 1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2. 5. The brief service particulars of the appellant are furnished in the preceding paragraph. His initial appointment was on selection and he was also placed in a regular pay scale. For one reason or the other, he was not promoted to the post of Senior Assistant However, on completion of 10 years of service, he has been appointed to the post of Senior Assistant and was also placed in the relevant pay scale. A further benefit was extended to him on completion of 16 years of service. 6. It may be true that the appellant reached the post of Senior Assistant by way of upgradation and not through regular promotion. That, however, does not make any difference. A further benefit was extended to him on completion of 16 years of service. 6. It may be true that the appellant reached the post of Senior Assistant by way of upgradation and not through regular promotion. That, however, does not make any difference. There may be several methods of appointing an individual to a higher post, such as by promotion, direct recruitment and appointment by transfer. Irrespective of the method of appointment, once a person is upgraded to a higher post, he needs to be treated on par with other persons, who are in the same category, but have come through different sources. There does not exist any basis for the respondents in not including the name of the appellant in the list of promotion to the post of Superintendent. 7. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. Since the appellant has already retired from service, his pay scale shall be notionally considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent on par with other Senior Assistants, who are included in the list, dated 26.6.2003. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of.