Kanapurajurajasekhar vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 108 Tel

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                    AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY


                  WRIT APPEAL No.163 of 2020

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)


1.    The appellant/writ petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment
dated 23.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing
W.P.No.1218 of 2020 filed by him praying inter alia for a declaration
that the action of the respondent/Transport Authority, of rejecting his

request for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer vide Memo dated 10.12.2019, is arbitrary and discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, the appellant/writ petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent/Transport Authority in failing to place his name before the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'DPC') for effecting promotion to the post of Administrative Officer on the ground that the same is arbitrary and discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner holding inter alia that his plea that his name be placed before the DPC for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, is misconceived inasmuch as an employee has a right to seek consideration for promotion, but he cannot insist that he be promoted as a matter of course, when a disciplinary proceeding is pending against him. The learned Single Judge has referred to the disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant/writ petitioner which are stated to be at an advance stage, as the Enquiry Officer has submitted a Report

against the appellant/writ petitioner that is pending consideration before the Disciplinary Authority.

3. Ms. Deepti Angala, learned proxy counsel appearing for the appellant refers to G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, to urge that the learned Single Judge ought to have directed that the appellant/writ petitioner be considered for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer.

4. We are not persuaded by the said submission, as the subject G.O has been taken note of by the respondent/Transport Authority and the appellant was duly informed vide Memo dated 10.12.2019 that his name would be placed before the DPC to be conducted for considering promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, subject to his seniority, eligibility, rule of reservation and zone of consideration. We are in complete agreement with the observation made by the learned Single Judge that the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner for being considered for promotion to the subject post without any reference to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him, is contrary to the settled legal principles. The appellant/writ petitioner cannot claim any vested right to promotion in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The impugned order dated 23.01.2020 does not deserve any interference and is upheld. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine as meritless along with the pending applications, if any.

______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

20.01.2021 vs/jsu