Telangana High Court
Ch. Rangasai Bhatt, vs G.A. Ipr Dept., Rep. By Its Sec. 4 Ors., on 8 August, 2022
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
Writ Petition No.13051 of 2009
ORDER :(Per Hon'ble Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the orders in O.A.No.3816 of 2008 dated 08-04-2009 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and declare the said orders as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to fix the seniority of the petitioner in the Assistant Director cadre and effect his promotion with effect from 10-02- 1995 and appoint him as Joint Director by promotion with the seniority and all other attendant benefits.
2. Heard Sri P. Giri Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was ::2::
working as Assistant Director (Song and Drama) with the respondents and he is fully eligible and qualified to Deputy Director. He had also contended that the respondents have promoted junior to the petitioner as Deputy Director vide proceedings dated 10-02-1995 and when the case of the petitioner was not considered to promotion to the post of Deputy Director he has filed O.A.No.3816 of 2008 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to consider the case of the petitioner on par with his juniors. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had further contended that the Tribunal without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner had dismissed the O.A.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further contended that the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director on 23-12-1992 and when his junior was promoted as Deputy Director, the petitioner was ::3::
fully eligible and qualified senior for the post of Deputy Director. But the respondents, without considering the case of the petitioner, have promoted his junior to the post of Deputy Director. The Tribunal ought to have considered the case of the petitioner in all fairness and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director. Therefore, he requests to pass appropriate orders in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and effect his promotion with effect from 10-02-1995 with all consequential benefits.
5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that the petitioner was working as Assistant Director (Song and Drama) and the Assistant Director (Song and Drama) was not feeder category for promotion to the post of Deputy Director and the rules were amended vide G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 28-01-2003 making the Assistant ::4::
Director (Song and Drama) as one of the feeder category for promotion to the post of Deputy Director and when the Rules were amended, the petitioner was considered to the promotion of Deputy Director vide proceedings dated 17-03-2003 and the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the O.A. as post of the Assistant Director (Song and Drama) which the petitioner was holding was not feeder post to the promotion of Deputy Director, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the O.A. as the post held by the petitioner i.e., the Assistant Director (Song and Drama) was not form part of feeder category for promotion to the post of Deputy Director and Rules were amended vide G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 28-01-2003 making the Assistant Director (Song and Drama) as ::5::
one of the feeder category for promotion to the post of Deputy Director and when the Rules were amended, the petitioner was considered to the promotion of Deputy Director vide proceedings dated 17-03-2003. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the O.A. and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.3816 of 2008 dated 08-04-2009 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J August 08, 2022 PN ::6::
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY Writ Petition No.13051 of 2009 (Per Hon'ble Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) August 08, 2022 PN