REPAKA NAGAMANI Vs. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-8-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court allowing the Writ Petition No. 13158 of 1996. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein praying for issuance of writ of mandamus and to declare the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in promoting the 3rd respondent therein as Senior Assistant, L.N. Gupta College of Science and Commerce, Charkaman, Hyderabad by overlooking the eligibility and service as incharge Assistant and Office incharge, even though the 3rd respondent acquired the eligibility after lapse of so many years and to direct the official respondents to confirm the services of the petitioner as Senior Assistant from 27-8-1993.

(2.) THE writ petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Typist in the respondent College. In the vacancy arisen on 21-4-1993 in the post of Senior Assistant due to demise of incumbent, he was kept in full additional charge of the post on 27-8-1993. Yet again, in a vacancy arisen in the post of Superintendent, the writ petitioner was kept in full additional charge with effect from 1-10-1995. Allegedly, he has been making representations to promote him as Senior Assistant on regular basis on the ground that he was the only qualified person to hold the post when the vacancy had arisen. THE appellant herein passed the departmental tests prescribed for the post of Senior Assistant in the year 1995 whereafter a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held on 4-7-1996 for considering the cases of all eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant.

(3.) MR. J. Sudheer, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondent on the other hand submitted that the question as regards the applicability of the principle of estoppel had not been raised before the learned single Judge and in any event, there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. It was however submitted that the action of the official respondents herein is mala fide inasmuch as the post of Senior Assistant was kept vacant for a long time and only when the appellant herein became eligible for consideration, the proposal for filling up the said post was sent to the Government whereafter only the Departmental Promotion Committee held its meeting. The learned Counsel submitted that the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution had thus been violated by reason of the inaction on the part of the College authorities. In support of the aforementioned contention, the learned Counsel placed reliance on B. Krishnaiah v. State of A.P. (supra) and on Baij Nath Sharma v Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, .