Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N Jaya Prakash vs The District Collector on 24 January, 2023
Bench: K Manmadha Rao
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION (AT) No.543 of 2021
ORDER :
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the following relief:-
"...to declare the action of the respondents in not
considering the case of the applicant for notional promotion
in the category of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I
consequent on dropping of the charges and proceeding
further with the promotion to the post of Assistant Social
Welfare Officers without finalizing the promotion and
seniority issue as illegal arbitrary discriminatory and
violative of Articles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of
India and consequently direct the respondents to promote
the applicant as Hostel Welfare Officer GradeI notionally on
par with his Juniors with all service and monetary benefits
and further promote the applicant as Assistant Social
Welfare Officers strictly as per his seniority in the feeder
category and pass such other order or orders........"
2. Brief facts of the case are that initially the
petitioner had been appointed as Hostel Welfare Grade -II on
21.1.1986 after due process of selection. The petitioner's
name was placed at Sl.No.11 and the names of one Sri
C.Pakeeriah and Reddy Balaji were figured at Sl.Nos. 17 and
20 respectively and these two persons are juniors to the
petitioner and there was no objection to the above said
placement at any point of time. The 4th respondent
prepared a provisional seniority list of Hostel Welfare
Officers Grade-II on 30.07.2003. According to the said list,
the petitioner's name was figured at Sl.No.56 whereas those
above said two persons were figured at Sl.Nos.59 and 61
respectively.
It is stated that the Government issued
G.O.Rt.No.718, dated 26.8.2010 where under issued orders
revising the date of commencement of probation in respect
of HWOs Grade-II in YSR (Kadapa) District. In view of the
above G.O., the 1st respondent has issued a revised
provisional seniority list on 15.2.2011 by placing the
petitioner at Sl.No.6 and whereas the above said two
persons figured at Sl.Nos.4 and 5 who are juniors to the
petitioner. Against the same, the petitioner raised
objections on 28.2.2011 stating that he is senior to the
above said two persons as per his merit in the selection
process which is as per Rule 33(b) of A.P. State and
Subordinate Service Rules. Thereafter, without considering
the same, the 1st respondent has issued a Charge Memo
dated 20.02.2011 to the petitioner. Subsequently, the
petitioner has submitted his explanation on 8.4.2011
denying the allegations. Accordingly, considering the same,
the 1st respondent has dropped charges against the
petitioner on 15.06.2011.
While the matter stood thus, the petitioner's juniors
were promoted as HWOs Grade-I on 23.05.2011, whereas
the petitioner was promoted to the said post on 05.07.2011
on the ground that pendency of charge, which was dropped
within 3 months and promotions are given interregnum.
Therefore, the petitioner made representations on 5.7.2012,
25.7.2012 and 30.11.2016 to the 2nd and 3rd respondents
requesting to consider his case for notional promotion on
par with his juniors. But, the respondents have not taken
any action so far. Hence, the present writ petition has been
filed.
3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th
respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition
and inter alia contended that the final seniority list had
been issued by giving clarification to the objection raised by
the Hostel Welfare Officers as follows :
"Those who are not pass the prescribed departmental
test within the stipulated time the approved list by the
recruitment agency seniority is not considerable as per
general rule 16h, the same judgment of A.P.A.T. Hyderabad
has confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in his W.p.22978
/2008 batch dated:18-12- 2008. The earlier seniority list of
Wardens / Matrons Grade-II is tentative list such list is not
approved by the competent authority and not communicated
the final seniority list which is controversy to the
G.O.M.S.No.615 Education (SW) Dept., dated 24-03-1972 and
also to the Memo No.1197/SER- A/94-1 dated:20-101994.
Hence the objection is over ruled."
It is further contended that basing on the inspection
report of the Deputy Director (SW) YSR District, this office
has framed article of charges on certain irregularities of the
petitioner. As per the final seniority list of the Grade-II
HWOs, the Grade-II has been promoted as Grade-I including
juniors of the individual. Later, taking into consideration
the previous performance the petitioner has promoted as
Grade-I HWO w.e.f. 5.7.2011. The Director of Social
Welfare, A.P. has taken into consideration the orders on
notional promotion to his juniors who get promotion after
23.5.2011 had been considered and promoted as Assistant
Social Welfare Officer and posted to Chittoor vide
proceedings in Rc.No.F1/131/2017-ZONE-IV-14 dated
17.08.2017 and relieved as Grade-I HWO vide proceedings
in Rc.No.A3/31/2017, dated 22.08.2017 to report in new
stations as ASWO. Accordingly, the request of the
individual has been fulfilled as per the rules in force.
4. Heard Sri Poodattu Amarender, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader
for Services-II appearing for the respondents.
5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
argued that some of the HWOs, whose seniority is revised
pursuant to the orders of the Government vide
G.O.Rt.No.718, dated 26.8.2012, have preferred number of
O.As vide O.A No.5119 of 2011 & Batch before the A.P.
Administrative Tribunal seeking fixation of seniority and the
same was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated
18.10.2012 and set aside the Government Orders.
Aggrieved by the same, several writ petitions were also filed
before this Court including W.P.No.6697 of 2013 which was
filed by the petitioner and this Court has granted status quo
orders on 13.03.2013. Since then the seniority of HWOs
kept pending for all these years. He further submitted that
the 2nd respondent has called for the particulars of eligible
HWOs Grade-I for effecting promotions to the post of ASWOs
including the names of one C.Pakeeraiah and G.Reddy
Balaji, who are admittedly juniors to the petitioner. He
further submitted that in fact as per the settled seniority in
the feeder category, the said C. Pakeeraiah and Reddy Balaji
were considered for promotion as Grade-I HWOs prior to the
petitioner, since charges were pending against him, but,
subsequently the charges were dropped. Hence, as per
rules, the petitioner is entitled to notional promotion on par
with his juniors. Hence, learned counsel requests this
Court to pass appropriate orders as stated supra.
6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader while
reiterating the averments made in the counter argued that
after receipt of interim orders passed by the Tribunal and
also basing on the seniority list issued by the competent
authority as per guidelines laid down in G.O.Rt.No.718
Social Welfare (SER-1) dated 26.8.2010 and under Rule
16(h) of A.P. State Subordinate Service Rules 1996, the
request of the petitioner has been considered for notional
promotion w.e.f. 23.5.2011 instead of 5.7.2011 i.e., actual
date of promotion on par with his junior i.e., Sri K.
Harishchandra Prasad vide office proceedings in
Rc.No.A3/14/2017 dated 2.3.2017 but not changing the
existing seniority list as the status quo orders in
W.P.No.9456 of 2013 of this Court is in force.
7. On hearing, this Court observed that the case of
the petitioner for promotion to the post of HWO Grade-I was
initially overlooked on the ground of pendency of Charge
Memo dated 20.2.2011 which was issued against him.
However, the same was dropped vide proceedings dated
15.6.2011. Meanwhile, two of his juniors were promoted
and on the representation made by the petitioner, he was
also promoted as HWO Grade-I. Now the grievance of the
petitioner is that though the petitioner made representation
for extending notional seniority to him on par with his
juniors in the category of HWO Grade-I the same is pending.
Now the respondents are proceeding further with the
promotions to the post of ASWO where under juniors to the
petitioner by name C.Pakeeraiah and Reddy Balaji are
sought to be considered in preference to the petitioner.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case and on considering the submissions made by both
the learned counsels, this Court is of the considered view
that, the respondents are directed to consider the case of
petitioner for notional seniority on par with his juniors with
all consequential benefits.
9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is
disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous
applications shall stand closed.
______________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 24 -01-2023
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION (AT) No.543 of 2021
Date : 24 .01.2023
Gvl
