K. Durga Prasad vs Petta Bojji Raju
2021 Latest Caselaw 5128 AP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                        &

                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI


    I.A.No.1 of 2021 & 2 of 2021 in WRIT APPEAL No.787 of 2021
                                      AND
                        WRIT APPEAL No.787 of 2021
                              (Through physical mode)

K. Durga Prasad,
S/o. K. Radha Krishna Murthy,
Aged 58 years, Occ: Extension Officer (PR & RD),
Mandal Parishad, Kankipadu,
Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.
                                                        .. Applicant/appellant
       Versus

Petta Bojji Raju,
S/o. Petta Raja Rao,
Aged 56 years, Occ: Extension Officer (PR & RD),
Mandal Praja Parishad, Rajanagaram,
East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, and others.
                                                        .. Respondents

Counsel for the applicant/appellant : Ms. Kavitha Gottipati

Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota

Counsel for respondents 4 & 5 : GP for Service-IV

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt: 10.12.2021

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

I.A.No.1 of 2021 is an application preferred by Mr. K. Durga Prasad,

who is a third party to the proceedings in W.P.No.13296 of 2020, seeking

leave to prefer the appeal against the order dated 19.08.2020 passed by the

learned single Judge in the said writ petition. As there is a delay of 33 days

in filing the appeal, I.A.No.2 of 2021 has also been filed seeking condonation

of the said delay.

HCJ & BSB,J

2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein

questioning the action of the authorities in not issuing consequential/

appropriate orders in fixing their seniority above one G.L.N.V. Raghavan (3rd

respondent in the writ petition) in the cadre of Extension Officer (PR & RD)

Grade-I, with effect from 28.08.2012, in terms of the Memo issued by the

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development

Department, vide Memo No.PRR01-PROPEST (MPDO)/3/2020-ESTT-V dated

25.06.2020. The case projected by the writ petitioners was that they being

seniors to G.L.N.V. Raghavan, were entitled for fixation of seniority above

him. By the said Memo dated 25.06.2020, while allowing continuation of

G.L.N.V. Raghavan in the cadre of Extension Officer (PR & RD) Grade-I, the

Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, A.P., was

directed to consider the cases of the writ petitioners and other seniors for

promotion as Extension Officer (PR & RD) Grade-I on par with their junior

G.L.N.V. Raghavan, duly placing them above G.L.N.V. Raghavan as per their

seniority. Having referred to the said Memo, the learned single Judge

disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Commissioner, Panchayat

Raj & Rural Development Department, A.P., to consider the representations

of the writ petitioners and pass appropriate orders in the light of the Memo

dated 25.06.2020, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the

order.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that if the representations

of the writ petitioners are considered in their favour, the applicant would be

adversely affected for further promotion to the post of Divisional Panchayat

Officer.

HCJ & BSB,J

4. During the course of hearing, it is informed that the representations

of the writ petitioners have not yet been decided but the DPC proceedings

are underway.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the

considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the claim of the

applicant is also considered while considering the representations of the writ

petitioners in terms of the order of the learned single Judge.

6. Accordingly, while granting leave to prefer the appeal and condoning

the delay in filing the appeal, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ

appeal permitting the applicant herein to file a representation before the

authority concerned within a period of two weeks from today and on such

representation being made, it is directed that the same shall also be decided

while deciding the representations made by the writ petitioners in terms of

the order of the learned single Judge. Depending upon the outcome of their

representations, the writ petitioners or the applicant would be at liberty to

maintain fresh writ petition, if need be.

7. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2021 are allowed and the writ appeal

is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ                             B.S. BHANUMATHI, J

                                                                              IBL