E. SARITHA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are working as Agricultural Extension Officers Gr-II (AEO Gr-II and being appointed on 24/11/2012 and 24/1/2013 respectively. The post of AEO Gr-II is feeder category for being promoted as Agricultural officer (AO) and for being promoted as AO the in-service AEO should complete B.Sc. (Agriculture). Both the petitioners have done their B.Sc. (Agriculture) as in-service candidates and completed it by September, 2020. In the same academic year, six petitioners in W.P. No. 25660 of 2020 have also completed their B.Sc. (Agriculture) along with the petitioners by September, 2020. Upon successful completion of petitioners' B.Sc. (Agriculture), both they, including said petitioners in W.P. No. 25660 of 2020, through proper channel, submitted certificates along with individual requests/representations dtd. 18/9/2020 and 21/9/2020 respectively for consideration of their names to be included in seniority list prepared with eligible candidates for promoting them as AOs. But arbitrarily and discriminatively besides contrary to Rules-5 (c), 6(b) etc. of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, all the petitioners names, including the names of the said petitioners in W.P. No. 25660 of 2020, were not included in seniority list in order to consider all their candidatures for AO promotion on the pretext of submitting their certificates after 1/9/2020. Aggrieved by the same, all of those six AEOs, approached this Court by way of fling the above said W.P. No. 25660 of 2020 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dtd. 10/8/2021. Since the petitioners have submitted their representations to the 2nd respondent for consideration of their candidatures for AO promotion, but there is no response. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents till today and adjourning the matter for filing counter affidavit, again learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents sought time for filing counter affidavit. It appears that the respondents did not choose to file counter affidavit and failed to comply with the Rule 12(1) of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977. Following the decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in "J. Ramachandraiah Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others" (2012) 4 ALD 366 this Court finds that the respondents violated the Rule 12 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977. Therefore, this Court without expecting counter affidavit by the respondents, decided to dispose of the matter.