Telangana High Court
Govt. Of A.P. Hyderabad Another vs Sri R. Ramamohana Rao, Hyderabad ... on 1 December, 2021
Author: P Naveen Rao
Bench: P. Naveen Rao, P Sree Sudha
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
W.P. No. 25210 of 2005
Date :1.12.2021
Between:
GOVT OF A P HYDERABAD ANOTHER
Education Department Secretariat Hyderabad and another
Petitioners
And
SRI R RAMAMOHANA RAO HYDERABAD ANOTHER
Senior Assistant Dept of Archaeology Museums Govt of
Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad
Respondents
The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
W.P. No. 25210 of 2005
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P Naveen Rao) Heard learned Government Pleader for petitioners, Sri P Sainath for respondent no.1 and Sri V.V.N.Narasimham for respondent no.2.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:
".......to issue any writ or proceedings more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI Calling for the records pertaining to the order passed on 1572004 in OA No 6148 of 1999 on the file of Honble A P Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal and arbitrar and pass such other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case....."
3. The first respondent herein was appointed as Mechanic (Numismatics) in State Archeological Museums, Hyderabad vide proceedings dated 18.7.1979. He was absorbed in that post w.e.f. 1.8.1979 and his probation was declared on 31.7.1981. He was appointed as Typist on 21.2.1989. The first respondent set up a claim that he was having all the requisite qualifications and eligibility by the year 1983, therefore, he should have been appointed as Typist instead of appointing second respondent and such action is illegal. He therefore claimed that he should be declared as senior to second respondent. The claim of first respondent was referred to Government by the Director, State Archeological Museums. The Government by order dated 30.10.1998 rejected the proposal. Aggrieved thereby, first respondent filed O A No. 6148 of 1999. The Tribunal by its order dated 22.7.2004 allowed the O.A. holding that undue favoritism was conferred on second respondent ignoring the claim of first respondent, even though he got necessary qualification for granting promotion and directed that the first respondent should be given seniority from the date of posting given to second respondent by giving notional benefits from the date of filing of the application and monitory benefits subsequent thereto.
4. According to learned Government Pleader, the Tribunal erred in granting the relief ignoring the specific stand of the petitioners that first respondent did not apply to the post of Typist, even though the applications were called, but actually applied for the post of Junior Assistant.
5. It is not in dispute that to fill an existing vacancy of Typist, internal notification dated 21.10.1982 was issued to consider eligible inservice candidates for appointment as Typists and the first respondent did not respond to said notification, whereas, the second respondent applied and she was found eligible and was appointed. This aspect was not appreciated by the Tribunal. Further the issue of appointment of second respondent as Typist dates back to 29.12.1983, whereas the claim was set up by the first respondent much later claiming that he ought to have been appointed and he should be granted seniority. Processing such application by the Director it self was erroneous as no such belated application could have been entertained, therefore, rejection of the request of the first respondent to grant seniority is valid and Tribunal grossly erred in not considering the aspect of delay and latches. Having regard to the claim set up by the first respondent, the rejection of the same cannot itself give a cause of action as that request was made much later after actual appointment of second respondent. The order of the Tribunal is not sustainable in law and accordingly the same is set aside.
6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending stand closed.
__________________ P NAVEEN RAO,J ___________________ P. SREE SUDHA, J DATE: 1.12.2021 TVK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA W.P. No. 25210 of 2005 Date :1.12.2021