S.RAVI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was selected as Excise Inspector in the year 1996 through APPSC and was appointed as Prohibition and Excise Inspector and allotted to Zone-III and he joined in the said post on 2/11/1996. Subsequently, he was as promoted as Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent in the year 2014 and Excise Superintendent in the year 2021 and that since the date of his joining he was worked with utmost satisfaction without any remarks from any corner whatsoever. It is further stated that the petitioner has appeared for Subordinate Officers Test part-I and passed in all the examinations except in accounts during his probation period. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he passed Accounts test on 02-06- 2002 and in this regard, the respondents, invoking Rule 16(h) of Rules, 1996, extended his probation and fixed the revised date of commencement of probation from 1/6/2000 instead of 2/11/1996. In furtherance of the same, the 1strespondent issued G.O.R.T.No.1416, dtd. 30/7/2003 treating his probation period from 1/6/2000 to 2/6/2002 instead of 2/11/1996 to 2/6/2002. Thus, by virtue of the extension of his probation and revised date of commencement of his probation, the petitioner was denied 4 years of regular service and as a result his promotional avenues were effected and the juniors who secured lesser marks were placed above the petitioner in the provisional seniority list. Therefore, the petitioner made several representations to the respondents requesting to relax Rule 16(h) of Rules, 1996 and consider his 4 years as regular service and restore the seniority based on merit and ranking fixed by the APPSC. But the respondents have not consider his case and hence the petitioner approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of filing O.A No. 1411 of 2018 seeking a direction to consider my representation for relaxing Rule 16(h) of Rules, 1996 and restore the seniority based on the merit and ranking assigned by APPSC by duly considering 4 years of his regular service. The same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Tribunal without giving any reasons vide its order Dt:19/7/2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred WP No. 28389 of 2018 before this Hon'ble Court and the same was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court with a direction to the respondents to dispose of his representation Dt:4/7/2018 within 4 weeks, in terms of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2016 (6) ALT 47. But the 1st respondent without considering his representation rejected the same, which is in utter deviation from the settled law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Heard Sri Kalyan C.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.