WP/10972/2002 of K.Ramarao Vs The District Judge on 29 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA,THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NARAYANA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 10972 of 2002

Between:

K.Ramarao S/o.Ramappadu

Junior Assistant, Excise Court, Srikakulam.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The District Judge

Srikakulam

2 The Registrar (Admn.)

High Court of A.P. Hyderabad

.....RESPONDENT(S)

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 a Writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of CERTIORARI calling forthe records relating to the order dated 17-4-2001 (D.No.2159/19-4-2001) issued byDistrict Judge, Srikakulam and order Roc.No.1242/2001-C1 (1) dated 15-2-2002issued by the Registrar (Admn), High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and quash the sameand consequently declare that the petitioner is entitiled for fixation of Seniority in thecadre of Junior Assistants strictly in conformity with Rule 9 (2) of A.P. JudicialMinisterial Services Rules.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VEERA REDDY (Not present)

Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.M.BHASKARA LAKSHMI (SC FOR APHC)

The Court made the following :

ORAL ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice)

None for the petitioner.

Petitioner is questioning the order dated 17-4-2001 passed by the DistrictJudge, Srikakulam and order dated 15-2-2002 passed by the second respondentwith prayer to quash the same and declare him entitled for fixation of seniority in thecadre of Junior Assistants in conformity with Rule 9(2) of the A.P. Judicial MinisterialService Rules. Claim of the petitioner has been disputed by respondents on affidavitin reply filed by the District Judge, Srikakulam. It is stated that the petitioner joinedthe service on 22-8-1990 and was regularized with effect from 23[rd] August, 1990. Henever objected to the said dates and his claim for being placed above those uptoserial No.99 is misconceived. Petitioner had not entered in service in 1983-90. Thecandidates, whose services were regularized with retrospective effect from the dateof their joining on promotion during the period 1983-90, have definitely to rank abovethe petitioner since the petitioner joined only on 22-8-1990. In this view of the matter,there is no substance in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

___________________

DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ

29-12-2004

_____________________

M.NARAYANA REDDY, J

To

1 The District Judge

Srikakulam

2 The Registrar (Admn.) High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. High Court of A.P. Hyderabad.

3. The Section Officer, ‘C’ Section, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

4. The Section Incharge, Legal Cell, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

5 2 CD copies.