MOHANLAL AGARWAL Vs. S V SATYAPRASAD

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.) Before the learned single Judge, relevant rules applicable in the instant case, have not been produced. The learned single Judge proceeded on the basis that the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules are applicable in the instant case. Relying on the said rules, the learned Judge held that the post of Store Keeper was not considered as feeder category and as such the appellant herein could not have been considered for promotion. Relying upon the provisions of the said Rules and several decisions of the Apex Court viz., Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 964 and in B. Krishnaiah v. State of A.P., 1973 APHN Index 91, it was held that the rules which were prevailing on the date of vacancy shall prevail over the subsequent ones and the qualifications of the respective candidates should have been considered as on the date when the vacancy arose.