Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. A Jyothi vs Tenali Municipality on 24 January, 2023
1
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION (A.T) No.311 of 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief:
".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction declaring the endorsement in Proceedings ROC No. 3843/2007/C3, dated 08.08.2016 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and untenable violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from contrary to Rule 22 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and set aside the same and issue consequential directions directing the respondents particularly the 1st respondent to forthwith consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Master against the Roster Point No.6 of 100 Point Roster prescribed under Rule 22 of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules and pass such other orders."
2. Heard Mr. P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, Services-III for the respondents.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as Head Master in Physically Handicapped quota despite not only having two posts of Head Master among which one post is earmarked for Physically handicapped category as per the Roster being maintained by the 1st respondent, but the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for promotion and they are taking steps to fill up the posts by other than the Physically Handicapped Quota and reserved candidates. The petitioner made a representations dated 22.06.2016 and 03.09.2016 requesting the 1st respondent to consider the case for 2 promotion as Head Master under the vacancies earmarked for physically handicapped category under Rule 22 of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, but the respondents without considering the representation are taking steps to fill up the 6th roster point by the candidates i.e other than physically handicapped category is highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore the writ petition came to be filed.
4. Per contra, the 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit denying material averments made in the affidavit and mainly contended that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1991 under PHC quota and she has been promoted as School Assistant (Social Studies) on 01.06.2013 as per seniority and eligibility. The petitioner is eligible for promotion, due to having prescribed qualifications to that promotion post is School Assistant (Social Studies) and also eligible for promotion against the roster point which is enhanced for SC Candidate and also reserved for PHC roster point, when the posts are available as per the percentage. The respondent issued an endorsement dated 08.08.2016 against the representation submitted by the petitioner stating that no provision to allot one HM post to under the roaster point 6 (reserved for disabled to blind) due to only 6 posts were sanctioned to this Municipality. As per the percentage of allotment is only 0.18% but not 0.5 or above and further point No.6 was allotted to disabled persons i.e blind and there are no available 3 candidates of blind, deaf and dum. Hence the post of 6 roster point shall be allotted to her under PHC. When and where there is no provision to allot one post for reservation under 3% of disabled, in what way to provide promotions under PHC reservation to the petitioner. Therefore there is no ignorance of rule 22 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. The vacancies 6 and 7 are filled under the reservation categories, but there is no allotment to the reserved category therefore the impugned endorsement is issued. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents urged in the affidavit and it is contended by the 1st respondent that is only cadre strength and in the cadre of Head Master, there are six posts and only 3% posts are reserved for physically handicapped quota, which comes under 0.18 and that there is no possibility to allot atleast one post for physically handicapped, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Further, contended that as per rule 22 of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 100 point roster prescribed and allotted to various categories including physically handicapped categories. Therefore the respondents ought to have implemented the reservations and ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for promotion as Head Master under physically handicapped quota. But the 1st respondent rejected such request and made impugned endorsement is highly untenable and irrelevant. 4
6. The respondents clearly stated in the counter-affidavit in Para 4 that the petitioner is eligible for promotion, due to having prescribed qualifications to that promotion post is School Assistant (Social Studies) and also eligible for promotion against the roster point which is enhanced for SC candidate and also reserved for PHC roster point, when theu posts available as per the percentage.
7. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher level i.e Head Master as and when vacancies arises, while setting aside the impugned endorsement dated 08.08.2016 issued by the 1srt respondent.
8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
___________________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO Date: 24.01.2023.
KK 5 THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION (AT) No.311 of 2021 Date: 24.01.2023.
KK