Telangana High Court
WP/7187/1996 of B. Prasada Rao Vs Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, on 30 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 7187 of 1996 Between: B. Prasada Rao s/o Anandarao V.S.R. & N.V.R.College, Tenali.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
WRIT PETITION NO : 7187 of 1996
Between:
B. Prasada Rao s/o Anandarao
V.S.R. & N.V.R.College, Tenali.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Education (Higher Education)Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
2 Commissioner of collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
3 Correspondent, V.S.R. & N.V.R.College, Tenali.
4 Smt. Jhansi Lakshmi, V.S.R. & N.V.R.College, Tenali, Guntur district.
5 V.V. Basava Rao, V.S.R. & N.V.R.College, Tenali, Guntur District.
6 Y.S. Prakasa Rao, V.S.R. & N.V.R.College, Tenali, Guntur District.
7 D. Rajya Lakshmi, V.S.R. & N.V.R.College, Tenali, Guntur District. R7-Dismissed for default as per court order dt 14/2/03Dismissed for default as per court order dt 14/2/03
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of writ ofMandamus i) declaring the impugned proceedings viz., G.O.Rt.No.1028 Edn. (C.E.II-1) Department dated 24.6.94 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and theproceedings of the Commissioner of collegiate Education, A.P. Hyderabad inRc.No.1343/PC-1-4/94 dated 1.8.94 are illegal, without jurisdiction, null and void ii)declaring the promotions of the respondents 4 to 7 as illegal and without jurisdiction.iii) directing the respondents 1 to 3 to promote the petitioner to the aided post ofRecord Assistant with effect from 10.1.74. iv) declaring that the petitioner is senior torespondents 4 to 7 in the post of attender as well as record assistant and v) directingthe respondents 1 to 3 to pay the arrears of salary due to the petitioner in the post ofrecord assistant with effect from 25.3.92 and continue to pay the future salary asRecord Assistant in the government scale of pay.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.HARINATH
Counsel for respondent Nos.1& 2: G.P. for Higher Education.Counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5: Sri B.Bhaskara RaoCounsel for the Respondent No.3: Sri D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Rt.No.1028/Edn(C.E.II-1) Department, dated 24.06.1994 issued by the Government of AndhraPradesh and the proceedings of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, AndhraPradesh, Hyderabad, in Rc.No.1343/PC-1-4/94, dated 01.08.1994 as illegal andwithout jurisdiction and consequently declare the promotions of respondents 4 to 7as illegal and to direct respondents 1 to 3 to promote the petitioner to the aided postof Record Assistant with effect from 10.01.1974, declaring that the petitioner issenior to respondents 4 to 7 in the post of Attendar as well as Record Assistant andto pay arrears of salary due to the petitioner in the post of Record Assistant witheffect from 25.03.1992 and continue to pay the future salary as Record Assistant inthe Government scale of pay.
It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Attendar in an aidedvacancy with effect from 21.12.1967. In the year 1974 when a vacancy of RecordAssistant arose in a regular aided post, instead of appointing the petitioner,respondent No.4 was appointed in the said vacancy. However, the petitioner wasalso promoted as Record Assistant in the year 1978 against an un-aided vacancyand continued as such. Further, in the year 1982, when three more aided vacanciesof Record Assistants arose, respondents 5 to 7 were appointed, denying the right ofthe petitioner to be appointed against an aided vacancy. Even otherwise, thepetitioner is entitled for wages as Record Assistant on par with others, right from1978 till the date of his retirement from the services.
A detailed counter affidavit has been filed denying the allegations made by thepetitioner. It is asserted in the counter that the petitioner and two others preferred to remain as Attendars, when their turn came for being promoted to the post of RecordAssistant (aided) and gave up their right for promotion, since the age ofsuperannuation for Attendar is 60 years and the age of superannuation for RecordAssistant is 58 years. Thus, the petitioner himself refused for being promoted to thepost of Record Assistant. However, he was appointed as Record Assistant in theyear 1978 against an unaided vacancy. There after, the petitioner himself gave aletter, dated 04.03.1991 to the Special Officer, stating that he was working as an un-aided Record Assistant in the College and he is willing to accept the aided post ofAttendar, if offered. Under those circumstances, the name of the petitioner wasrecommended for the appointment and continuation of his services in the aidedvacancy of Attendar. Therefore, the Government was kind enough to regularize theservices of the petitioner and appoint him as Attendar against the aided vacancy. Itis further asserted that the petitioner was appointed as aided Games Boy from03.01.1968 till the date of his promotion as unaided Record Assistant in 1978 andever since the date of his promotion as unaided Record Assistant, he never draw theaided scale in the cadre of Attendar. Basing on his own representation, the thenSpecial Officer admitted to grand-in-aid post of Attendar from 24.06.1994 and thesaid action of the Special Officer was ratified by the 2[nd] respondent videproceedings in Rc.No.1493/PC-IV/91, dated 01.08.1994. There after, the petitionerwas absorbed in to the grand-in-aid post of Attendar in 1994 and he was paidarrears of salary of Rs.83,568/-, which he received without any protest andsubsequently, the petitioner was promoted as aided Record Assistant and continuedas such till his retirement.
From the above, it is seen that the very claim of the petitioner is speculative. Earlier,the petitioner and two other Attendars refused to be promoted to the post of RecordAssistant in the year 1974, since the age of superannuation of Attender was 60years and the age of superannuation for the post of Record Assistant was 58 years.
There after, he was promoted as Record Assistant in the year 1978 against an un-aided vacancy, but he did not challenge this action of the respondents at any point oftime. On the other hand, as stated by the respondents, the petitioner submitted arepresentation, dated 04.03.1991 before the Special Officer, giving his willingness towork as Attendar in the aided post and therefore, he was appointed as Attendar inan aided post and his arrears were also paid as stated supra. In this writ petition, thepetitioner not only challenges the promotion of respondent No.4 to the post ofRecord Assistant in the year 1974 but also seeks a declaration that the promotion ofrespondents 5 to 7 in the year 1982 as Record Assistant is bad in law. Havingreceived all the benefits of an attender, the petitioner intends to challenge the actionof the respondents of the 1974 in promoting R.No.4 and of 1982 in promoting R5 to7, which is not permissible at this length of time. The writ petition is imaginative,speculative, misconceived and devoid of merits, as such it is liable to be dismissed.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Dt.30.12.2004tjs
____________C.V.RAMULU.J.,
To
1 Principal Secretary, Govt. of A.P., Education (Higher Education)Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
2 Commissioner of collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
3 Correspondent, V.S.R. & N.V.R.College, Tenali.
4 2CD copies.