Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1216 AP
Judgement Date : 8 March, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE: W.P. No. 24917 of 2020
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
08. 08.03.2022 RNT, J
Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the
petitioners, submits that the petitioners were
appointed as Assistant Commercial Tax Officers
through direct recruitment in 2001 after being
successful in the selection process conducted by
APPSC in pursuance of Notification No.10/1999.
They joined on 31.01.2001, 08.02.2001 and
09.02.2001 respectively. The petitioners were
selected under reserved category (Scheduled
Caste category). During the said process of
selection, the State enacted a law dividing the SC
category into SC(A), SC(B) and SC(C) and the
vacancies were notified in that manner by
showing sub-categories of SC category.
However, in the case of E V Chinnaiah;
Malamahanadu Registered Society; Mallela
Venkata Rao; Kota Samanth v. State of
Andhra Pradesh {reported in 2004 LawSuit
(SC) 1338}, the Hon'ble Apex Court has declared
that the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Caste
(Rationalization of Reservation) Act 20 of 2000 as
unconstitutional. Consequently, the services of
petitioners No.1 and 2 were terminated and the
petitioner No.3 was shifted to Panchayt Raj
Department based on new merit list. The
Hon'ble Apex Court, in I.A.No.5 in CA
No.6758/2000, dated 25.09.2006, clarified that all
appointments made prior to its judgment on the
basis of reservation permitted by the legislation
which was struck down, shall not be affected,
2
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
and the promotions, if any already granted before
the said judgment shall also remain unaffected.
Consequent there upon, the petitioners were
reinstated in 2006 and all consequential benefits
were granted treating the period of gap as also
on duty and were promoted to further post in
2010. However, the petitioners were granted
seniority with effect from the date of their
reinstatement and not with effect from their
initial appointment, consequently they are being
denied the further promotion.
In spite of time having been granted to the
respondents on various dates, the counter
affidavit has not been filed.
On 15.02.2022 it was directed that counter shall be filed by the next date positively, but in spite thereof, on 22.02.2022 further time was requested and today also a request has been made on behalf of respondents for further time to file counter affidavit.
Counter affidavit is considered necessary particularly on the point as to why the petitioners' seniority is considered with effect from the date of their reinstatement as submitted by the petitioners' counsel.
Two weeks further time, as last opportunity, is granted to file counter affidavit, failing which, respondent No.1 shall appear in person before this Court with relevant records to assist the Court on the date fixed.
List on 23.03.2022.
_________ RNT, J Dsr
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!