V.DEVANAND Vs. HIGH COURT OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as an Attender in the judicial department and was called for an interview for selection to the post of Field Assistant in Chittoor District, vide proceedings, dtd. 3/3/2021. The petitioner was shown at Sl.No.6 of the 44 candidates who were called for such interview. The petitioner had attended the interview. However, the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of 13 successful candidates who were promoted as Field Assistants, by way of proceedings of the 2nd respondent-Principal District Judge, dtd. 9/3/2021, bearing Dis.No.1665/Estt./A1/2021. The petitioner also states that three of his juniors found place in the said list.

(2.) The petitioner being aggrieved by denial of promotion had made a representation dtd. 14/3/2021 to the 1st respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition with the complaint that the representation of the petitioner had not been considered by the 1st respondent. The primary contention of the petitioner, at the time of the filing of the writ petition, was that he could not have been denied promotion in as much as his juniors in service, who had put in less period of service, had been promoted while he had been denied promotion despite having appeared in the interview.

(3.) The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit. In this counter affidavit it was stated that on 6/10/2020, the Junior Civil Judge, Satyaveedu, where the petitioner was working as process server, had issued a memo dtd. 6/10/2020, calling for an explanation as to why he was not serving summons and notices entrusted to him in various suits and execution petitions. The petitioner sought time, on 8/10/2020, to give his explanation. As no explanation was subsequently submitted by the petitioner, the Junior Civil Judge, Satyaveedu had sent a report dtd. 14/12/2020, which was received by the 2nd respondent on 17/12/2020. Upon being requested to give the details of the suits and notices which were not being served by the petitioner, the Junior Civil Judge had, by communication, dtd. 18/1/2021, furnished details of 25 cases in which the process had been abnormally delayed.