G. MADDIKERAPPA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in promoting the respondents 3 to 15 as Record Assistants excluding the petitioner as illegal and direct the first respondent to give promotion to the petitioner as Record Assistant with effect from 4.4.1988 with all consequential benefits by placing the petitioner above the respondents 3 to 15 in seniority and grant such other reliefs.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Attender in the unit of the District Judge, Kurnool vide orders dated 14.12.1979. His probation was also declared on 5.7.1983. On 1.5.1981 he made a representation for promotion the first respondent, who in his letter dated 115.1981 informed to the petitioner that his claim for promotion will be considered as and when vacancy arises taking into consideration his seniority in the category. It is his further case that the first respondent in his proceedings, dated 4.4.1988 gave promotions to respondents 3 to 13 as Record Assistants and later on 1.10.1988 to respondents 14 and 15 who are all junior to him and their probation was also not declared. He made representations on 8.4.1988 and 30.11.1988 to the first respondent claiming promotion as against his juniors but the same was not considered. The further submission is that he came to understand that his claim was not considered, because an enquiry was pending against him for dereliction of duty and insubordination which was subsequently ended and he was awarded the punishment of "Censure." Therefore, he filed this writ petition.

(3.) It is well settled principle that when some enquiry is pending and is in progress and the allegation is a serious in nature, the competent authority is entitled to take into consideration the same while giving promotion to next higher post for the person, against whom the enquiry is initiated. In this case, the petitioner was appointed on 18.12.1979. His probation was declared in 1983. On his application for promotion communication was also sent to him that his case will be considered as and when vacancy arises, The petitioner's case is that respondents 3 to 15 are juniors and they were promoted. But on seeing the counter it is found that R. 3 to R.6 are seniors to him. So he cannot have any grievance against them, as they are seniors to him. So far as R.7 to R.15 are concerned though they were juniors to the petitioner, they were promoted on 4.4.1988. but by that time to his credit the petitioner was having one warning and pending a departmental enquiry, which was ultimately concluded on 7.6.1988 by passing an order of "Censure" against the petitioner. At certain times the officers will take a lenient view. But we must see the allegation which ultimately resulted in accepting the finding and passing the order of "Censure." The mere finding of "Censure" does not mean that the same cannot be taken into consideration at the time of promotion. So the petitioner cannot have any grievance because of the two situations. It is seen from the counter filed by the first respondent that Rule 14 and Rule 15 were reverted by him for want of vacancy. Subsequently also there is mother warning to the credit of the petitioner or 22.8.1989. So under these circumstances there is very justification for the first respondent to ignore the petitioner's claim for promotion.