Telangana High Court
N.Srinivas vs Hight Cout Of Andhra Pradesh , Hyderabad on 11 December, 2023
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No. 23907 of 2011
ORDER:(per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti) This writ petition is filed seeking a direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari calling for the records from the 1st respondent in passing the proceedings in ROC No.465/2009-C1, dated 29.07.2011, and quash the same.
2. None appears for both the petitioner and the respondents.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Process Server in the year 1999. On 08.09.2008, he was temporarily promoted as Field Assistant. The cadre strength of Attenders and Process Servers is 15 members in the Unit of Special Judge for Economic Offences, Criminal Court Complex, Nampally. The combined seniority list was prepared in the year 2004 and the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.2. On the retirement of one V. Pardesi, Field Assistant, a vacancy arose. The 2nd respondent considered the candidature of eligible candidates 2 and promoted the petitioner to the post of Field Assistant vide orders in No.989/Spl.J/EOC/Hyd/2008, dated 08.09.2008.
4. Aggrieved by order dated 08.09.2008, the 3rd respondent filed an administrative appeal before the 1st respondent. Order in ROC No.465/2009-C1, dated 29.07.2011 came to be passed by the 1st respondent, in the said order after perusing the material on record and the remarks of the presiding officer of economic offences Court and the representation of the 3rd respondent. Appellate Authority held that the promotion given to the petitioner is not in accordance with the GOs with regard to rule of reservation in promotions and the proceedings dated 08.09.2008 of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad were set aside. The order held that the rule of reservation should be observed where the cadre strength is more than Five in number in the promotion post and it further held that the seniority list has been altered in the feeder category behind the back of other employees.
5. It is averred in the writ affidavit filed by the petitioner that various GOs were issued from time to time for filling up the vacancies in respect of scheduled caste candidates. That 3 Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 09.01.2004, specifies roster points 2, 7, 16, 22 and 27 so on and so forth shall be filled up only by scheduled caste candidates.
6. It is averred that the seniority list was prepared and communicated to all the Attenders and Process Servers and none have challenged the list. That the administrative appeal was filed only after the promotion of petitioner in the category of Field Assistant. It is averred that Sl.No.2 of roster is to be filled by the scheduled caste candidate, issued vide G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 09.01.2004, and the petitioner being placed at Sl.No.2 was considered.
7. It is further averred in the writ affidavit that the 2nd respondent had rightly fixed the seniority before the vacancy arose in the category of Filed Assistant and petitioner was rightly considered as per the guidelines issued by the government from time to time and that he was only scheduled caste person available. It is averred that the promotion was affected by adhering to the guidelines in the GOs and the seniority list. There is no illegality committed by the 4 2nd respondent and the order of Appellate authority in ROC No.465/2009-C1, dated 29.07.2011 is liable to be set aside.
8. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent and it is averred in the counter affidavit that combined strength of Attenders and Process Servers is 15 in number and as per G.O.Ms.No.2 of social welfare department, dated 09.01.2004 guidelines were issued in para No.6 which is relevant and is as follows:-
"Reservation in promotion in favour of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be implemented in promotion to all the category of post in all service whose total cadre strength is more than Five"
9. It is also averred in the counter affidavit that the cadre strength of Filed Assistant in the 2nd respondent unit is only four and as such the GO is not applicable to the post of Field Assistant as the cadre strength is less than five.
10. It is further averred that when one post of Field Assistant fell vacant due to the retirement of one Sri V. Pardesi, the candidate at Sl.No.2 i.e., the petitioner was 5 promoted as the candidate at Sl.No.1 was not qualified. It is averred that it is not the strength of feeder category which is to be taken into consideration for implementation of rule of reservation, but it is the cadre strength in promotion post which is to be taken into account.
11. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit, it is averred that the cadre strength of Attenders in the unit of 2nd respondent is 15 and the writ petitioner is shown at Sl.No.12 in the seniority list in the year 2003 and 2004. GOs were issued for implementation of the rule of reservation in promotion for the employees belonging to SCs and STs categories. GOs issued carry certain guidelines with regard to preparation of panels and roster points. The 2nd respondent had altered the seniority list by not adhering to the guidelines issued in various GOs in preparing the panels. The writ petitioner was placed in the 2nd position from 12th position as there was no other scheduled caste candidate up to the Sl.No.12 of the seniority list. This action of the 2nd respondent in altering the seniority list is in gross violation of existing rules.6
12. It is averred in the counter affidavit of 1st respondent that the strength of feeder category i.e., attenders is 15 and cadre strength in promotion posts of Field Assistants is only four and therefore, as the cadre strength in promotion post is less than 5, rule of reservation in the subject matter does not arise. It is further averred that the seniority list has been altered and the GOs issued in respect of implementation of rule of reservation in promotions do not speak of alteration of seniority list. It is averred that a committee of Hon'ble Judges examined the matter in depth and concluded that the promotion given to the writ petitioner who was junior to the 3rd respondent, was not in accordance with the Government Orders and the seniority list was altered while affecting the promotion behind the back of other employees. The Hon'ble committee of Judges ordered for setting aside the earlier proceedings of the 2nd respondent and to take up the matter afresh and to fix the seniority of the writ petitioner.
13. Perused the writ affidavit filed by the petitioner and counter affidavits filed by the respondents and the material on record.7
14. This Court is of the opinion that rule of reservation is applicable only when cadre strength to promotion post exceeds five in number. It is also trite to state that the seniority of an employee in service is fixed with reference to his appointment in the category. In the present case, the seniority list has been altered and the petitioner has been promoted which is a gross violation and it was altered while effecting promotion, that too behind the back of the other employees. The administrative committee of Hon'ble Judges has rightly held it as a grave irregularity in affecting the promotion to the writ petitioner and accordingly, directed to set aside the impugned proceedings. We are of the opinion that the Committee of Hon'ble Judges view is correct.
15. A perusal of the proceedings in ROC No.465/2009-C1, dated 29.07.2011 indicates that it has been passed only after considering the material on record and taking into account the remarks of the presiding officer and appeal filed by the 3rd respondent. The authority has rightly set aside the proceedings dated 08.09.2008 of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad. This Court does not find any 8 grounds for interference in the proceedings of the High Court issued in ROC No.465/2009-C1, dated 29.07.2011. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits.
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ___________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 11.12.2023 plp