Andhra Pradesh High Court
WRIT PETITION 32053 of 2018 on 18 December 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT(Special Original Jurisdiction)TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVEPRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPAWRIT PETITION Nos. 32053 OF 2018 AND 20245 OF 2014WRIT PETITION NO: 32053 OF 2018
Between:
R.Laxmi Prasad, S/o.Venkata Ganga Rao, Aged about 59years,Occ;Deputy Executive Engineer, A.P. Education and WelfareInfrastructureDevelopment Corporation, Eluru, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh....PETITIONER
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Special Chief Secretary,School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velgapudi,Amaravathi, Guntur District.School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velgapudi,Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. Education and WelfareInfrastructure Development Corporation, Head Office, VijayawadaInfrastructure Development Corporation, Head Office, Vijayawada
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Courtmaybe pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly oneinthenature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the respondentsin not considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post ofExecutive Engineerin the6“" roster point meant forPhysically abledpersons by following G.O.Ms.No.188 GAD Department dated 18.12.2017 inthe promotion orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.247, School Education (Training)Department, dated 23.08.2018, along with othersis illegal arbitrary andunconstitutional and violation of principles of Natural Justice apart fromviolation of service rules on the subject with a consequential direction to the Respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner[for][ promotion][ to][ the]posi^fixecutive Engineer in the 6**^ roster point meant[for][ Physically] abledpir|ons<-Jy following G.O.Ms.No.188 GAD Department[dated][ 18.12.2017]’i.v.with all consequential benefits in interest of justice.
lA NO: 1 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying thatin the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to direct the respondents to consider the claim[of][ the][ petitioner][ for]promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the[6th][ roster][ point][ meant]for Physically abled persons by following G.O.Ms.No.188[GAD][ Department]dated 18.12.2017 forthwith.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO NARRA
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V. CH. NAIDU,[SC][ FOR][ HOUSING]
CORPORATION/APEWIDC
WRIT PETITION NO: 20245 OF 2014
Between:
R. Laxmi Prasad, S/o.Venkata Ganga Rao, Aged about 55 years, Occ;Deputy Executive Engineer, 0/0. A.P Education and Welfare[Infrastructure]Development Corporation, Guntur, Guntur District.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary,School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
2. The Managing Director, A.P Education and Welfare[Infrastructure]Development Corporation, Hyderabad.Development Corporation, Hyderabad.
3. The Executive Engineer, A.P Education and Welfare[Infrastructure]Development Corporation, Guntur Division, GunturDevelopment Corporation, Guntur Division, Guntur
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly[one][ in][ the][ nature]of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondentin notconsidering the claim of the petitioner for notional promotion in the cadre ofDeputy Executive Engineer on par with his batchmates w.e.f. 19-10-2000 isillegal,arbitraryandunconstitutional,andconsequentlydirecttherespondents to considering the claim of the petitioner for notional promotionin the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer on par with his matchmates w.e.f.19-10-2010bytakingintoconsiderationofhisinitialappointmentasExecutive Engineer on 26-12-1986 on consolidated pay[as][ was][ done][ in][ the]case of one Mr. V.Adinarayana, in Memo No. E1/1760/MD/APEWIDC/20 09dated 1-9-2012 with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014fWPMP. NO: 25384 OF 2Q14\
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to direct the 2"'^ respondent to consider the claim of the petitionerfor assignment of notional seniority with effect from 19-10-2000 by disposingthe representation dated 8-52014 and 13-6-2014 of the petitioner.Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO NARRA
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATIONCounsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI V. CH. NAIDU, SC FOR
HOUSING CORPORATION/APEWIDC
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPAWRIT PETITION NOS.32053 OF 2018 AND 20245 OF 2014
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.
COMMON ORDER:
Since the subject matter in both the writ petitions[is][ one][ and][ the]same,both the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by way of thiscommon order.
2. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Narra, learned counsel for the petitioners andSri V.Ch.Naidu, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. State Housing Corporation,appearing for the respondents.Sri V.Ch.Naidu, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. State Housing Corporation,appearing for the respondents.
Conclusion
3. Learnedcounselforthepetitioner wouldsubmitthat thoughthepetitioner submitted his representation to consider his promotion even underthe category of differently abled person quota, that was erroneously rejectedvide orders dated 06.06.2018 by the 2^^^ respondent-Managing Director, A.P.Education and WelfareInfrastructure Development Corporation,Learnedcounsel for the petitioner would further submit that one V.Lakshman Reddy,whois his junior, was promoted earlier to the case of the petitioner.Thepetitioner was retired from services in the year 2019 during the pendency ofthe present writ petitions.In fact, the petitioner has approached this Court forthesakeofhispromotionby W.P.No.20245of 2014seekingnotionalpromotioninthecadreof DeputyExecutiveEngineer onparwithhisbatchmates with effect from 19.10.2000 by Taking into[consideration][ his][ initial]petitioner submitted his representation to consider his promotion even underthe category of differently abled person quota, that was erroneously rejectedvide orders dated 06.06.2018 by the 2^^^ respondent-Managing Director, A.P.Education and WelfareInfrastructure Development Corporation,Learnedcounsel for the petitioner would further submit that one V.Lakshman Reddy,whois his junior, was promoted earlier to the case of the petitioner.Thepetitioner was retired from services in the year 2019 during the pendency ofthe present writ petitions.In fact, the petitioner has approached this Court forthesakeofhispromotionby W.P.No.20245of 2014seekingnotionalpromotioninthecadreof DeputyExecutiveEngineer onparwithhisbatchmates with effect from 19.10.2000 by Taking into[consideration][ his][ initial]
appointment as Executive Engineer dated 26.12.1986 on consolidated pay.Learned counsel would further submit that his representation was rejectedstating that he is not falling under the purview of category stipulated at PointNos.6, 31 and 56 in Roster of Reservation (ROR).Learned[counsel][ across]the Bench has filed a copy of his Service Register,[which would][ show][ that his]appointmentis under physically handicapped category.Finalsenioritylistwhich is prepared at the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers of APEWIDC,Annexure-I, dated 01.01.2014 also would show that his category is OC-PHC.That being the case, rejecting his candidature on the point that he is not fallingunder Point Nos.6, 31 and 56 is not tenable under law.
4. LearnedStandingCounselfor the Corporationwouldsubmitthatregarding the consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for the sake ofpromotion under PHC quota may be considered in the light of the entry in theService Register whichis supported by the final senioritylist.LearnedStanding Counsel fairly conceded the same and would submit that Courtmaygive appropriate directions in this regard.
5. Considering the submissions made, as rightly put by[learned][ counsel][ for]the petitioner, the Memo dated 06.06.2018 which was issuedby the 2ndrespondent-Managing Director stating that his case does not come under thepurview of Point Nos.6, 31 and 56 in ROR, does not stand for the scrutiny oflaw.The reason for Point No.6is meant for physically challengedwomenrespondent-Managing Director stating that his case does not come under thepurview of Point Nos.6, 31 and 56 in ROR, does not stand for the scrutiny oflaw.The reason for Point No.6is meant for physically challengedwomen category, Point No.31is meant for Deaf and Dumb and[Point][ No.56]is meantfor Physically Handicapped Quotai.e. for differently abled person.Whenthere is no dispute about the roster points, which[are][ meant][ for][ the][ otherwise]abled persons, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.188, General Administration (Ser-D)Department, dated 18.12.2017, which pertains to the[reservation][ in][ promotion]to the differently abled employees by making necessary[amendment][ to][ A.P.]State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the case of the petitioner needsconsideration.
6. In that regard, the Writ Petitions are disposed of,[however][ directing][ the]respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner[under][ differently][ abled]quota under PHC, after verifying the correspondingentriesinthe ServiceRegister of the individual which are placed on record[before][ this][ Court,][ and]take appropriate decision, accordingto governingrules[and]law,withinaperiod of two (02) months from the date of receipt[of][ a][ copy][ of][ this][ order.]There shall be no order as to costs.respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner[under][ differently][ abled]quota under PHC, after verifying the correspondingentriesinthe ServiceRegister of the individual which are placed on record[before][ this][ Court,][ and]take appropriate decision, accordingto governingrules[and]law,withinaperiod of two (02) months from the date of receipt[of][ a][ copy][ of][ this][ order.]There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending,[if][ any,][ shall][ stand]closed.
//TRUE COPY//
SD/- K SRINIVASA RAJUASSISTANT REGISTRAR’SECT^N OFFICERASSISTANT REGISTRAR’SECT^N OFFICER
To,
1. The Special Chief Secretary, School Education Department,[State][ of]Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velgapudi, Amaravathi,[Guntur]District.Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velgapudi, Amaravathi,[Guntur]District.
2. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. Education[and][ Welfare]Infrastructure Development Corporation, Head Office, Vijayawada.Infrastructure Development Corporation, Head Office, Vijayawada.
ssb
3. The Executive Engineer, A.P Education and Welfare[Infrastructure]Development Corporation, Guntur Division, GunturDevelopment Corporation, Guntur Division, Guntur
4. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Narra, Advocate [OPUC]
5. One CC to Sri V. Ch. Naidu, SC for Housing Corporation/APEWID[C][OPUC][OPUC]
6. Three CD Copies.
HIGH COURT
DATED:06/05/2025
COMMON ORDERWP.Nos.32053 of 2018 and 20245 of 2014
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONSWITHOUT COSTS
■^
rPy'oL-Co*■0^0-