G.R. Madhukar vs South Central Railway Employees ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3726 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                    AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY



                  WRIT APPEAL No.581 of 2019


JUDGMENT:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     The present writ appeal is arising out of the order

dated 18.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.27083 of 2017.

     The facts of the case reveal that the writ petition

was preferred by the respondents No.3 and 4 herein

stating that the bye-laws of the Society are not being

followed in the matter of promotion. The learned Single

Judge has disposed of the writ petition with a direction to

follow the bye-laws. The undisputed facts make it very

clear that for the purpose of promotion to the post of

Assistant Secretary, the post has to be filled up from the

staff of the category of Office Superintendent in the Grade

of Rs.840 - 1040. Undisputedly, the writ petitioners were

in the aforesaid cadre and in those circumstances, the

writ petition was disposed of directing the employer to

consider their case also.

After the judgment was delivered in the year 2019

the respondent No.3 in the writ appeal was promoted on

27.06.2019 and he has attained the age of

superannuation also. The respondent No.4 was also

promoted on the post of the Assistant Secretary.

The contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant is that the writ petition was not maintainable

in the light of the judgment delivered by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.No.1807 of 2010 and batch decided

on 04.07.2011, which was affirmed by the Division

Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1527 of 2012 and batch

decided on 06.12.2012. An appeal was preferred before

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter and the same

was also dismissed. Learned Counsel has argued before

this Court that as the South Central Railway Employees'

Cooperative Credit Society Limited is not a State and the

learned Single Judge could not have entertained the writ

petition.

The fact remains that the judgment was delivered in

the year 2019, the respondent No.3 in the appeal was

promoted in the year 2019, the respondent No.4 was also

promoted as they holding the qualifications and as they

were seniors to the appellant. This Court at this

juncture, does not find any reason to interfere with the

order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant

before this Court has been able to establish that the

respondent No.2 Society is not a State. He shall certainly

be free to take recourse to the remedies available for

challenging the order of promotion of the respondents

No.3 and 4 in accordance with law and the order passed

by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27083 of 2017

dated 18.06.2019 will not come in the way of the

appellant.

With the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands disposed

of. The miscellaneous applications pending in this writ

appeal, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 24.11.2021 vs