A Babu Rao vs J Rama Krishna
2023 Latest Caselaw 1830 AP

       HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

                                     AND

                   HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS


                              I.A.No.1 of 2022
                                         In
                            W.A.No.883 of 2022



O R D E R: (per D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J)


       This application is filed for suspension of the order dated

18.10.2022 in W.P.No.13962 of 2017.

      This Court has heard Sri Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior

counsel for the petitioner instructed by Sri N.Bharat Babu and Sri

D.V.Shasidhar for the writ petitioner and Government Pleader for

Endowments.

      Learned senior counsel argued the matter at length.          He

sought for suspension of the order passed by the learned single

Judge.    It is pointed out that the order passed by the learned

single Judge is totally contrary to the settled law on the subject. It

is also argued that the petitioner was promoted and was shown as
                                   2




senior in 2016 itself and since then, the position has been

continuing. Therefore, it is urged that the status quo ante should

be preserved. Relying upon a judgment of a Division Bench of the

Karnataka High Court reported in State of Karnataka v.

T.Chandrashekhar1, learned senior counsel argues that the

relevant day for reckoning, passing of the departmental exam, the

date on which the exam is conducted and not the date on which

the result is declared.

         In reply to this, learned counsel for the writ petitioner

(respondent in this application) and learned Government Pleader

for the State argued that the rule position clearly states that for

promotion, a candidate 'must have passed the examination' and

therefore, passing of the examination is the relevant criteria. In

addition, it is also submitted that the impugned order was passed

by the learned single Judge on merits on 18.10.2022. The

respondents were directed to revise the seniority list within six

weeks. Copy of the proceedings dated 22.11.2022 were produced

which shows that the present appellant was already reverted back

to the cadre of Senior Assistant with immediate effect. The

2004 (6) SLR 803

arguments in this case took place only in March, 2023 i.e. almost

four (4) months after the order was already implemented.

Therefore, they state that the suspension order should not be

granted as prayed for.

This Court after considering the submissions made notices

that the language used in the relevant rule which has been relied

upon clearly shows that the candidate 'must have passed' an

examination for promotion. This language is clear. Therefore,

this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the Karnataka High

Court judgment may not be fully applicable to the facts of this

case.

In addition, it is noticed that the impugned judgment was

passed in October, 2022. The writ appeal was filed in November,

but the hearing took place in March and by this date, the

respondents have acted according to the directions of the learned

single Judge, issued notice finalizing the seniority list and inviting

objections. No explanation or representation was apparently

received for the notice dated 26.10.2022 issued pursuant to the

single Judge's direction. Thereafter, the present appellant was

also demoted to the post of Senior Assistant. Suspending the

order now will again lead to administrative difficulties also.

Needless to say any action taken will always be subject to the final

result of this writ appeal. Granting suspension order is therefore

not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The interim application is therefore dismissed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU,J

_______________ V.SRINIVAS,J Date: 01.04.2023 KLP