V. RAJA SEKHAR Vs. N. UGRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A mandamus is sought in this Writ Petition to declare the proceedings dated 09.09.2015, and the consequential proceedings dated 10.09.2015, issued by the Principal District Judge, Anantapur as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, void and as contrary to Rules 22 and 23 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules ("Rules" for short), and to set them aside. A consequential direction is sought to the 1st respondent to allow the petitioners to continue as Senior Assistants pursuant to their promotion vide proceedings dated 23.05.2015.

(2.) FACTS , to the extent necessary, are that the 1st petitioner herein was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 01.12.1997, and the 2nd petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 18.09.1998. It is the petitioners' case that the cadre strength of Senior Assistants in Anantapur District is 17; Rule 22 of the Rules was amended by G.O.Ms. No.123, G.A. (Ser.D) Department dated 19.04.2003, with effect from 14.02.2003, providing for reservation in promotion to members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes at 15% and 6% respectively; three posts of Senior Assistants was required to be filled up by promotion from amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes, and one post of Senior Assistant from amongst members of the Scheduled tribes; as, at the time of effecting promotions, three posts of Senior Assistants were not held by members of the Scheduled Castes, the 1st respondent was obligated to follow the rule of reservation till the required percentage was obtained, and all the reserved posts were filled up; the process of effecting promotion, to the post of Senior Assistants, was initiated by the 1st respondent on 01.09.2014, on which date there was only one Senior Assistant from the Scheduled Caste category, and one Senior Assistant from the Scheduled Tribe category, in the District; as three posts of Senior Assistants were reserved in favour of the Scheduled Castes, and there was only one member of the Scheduled Castes holding the post of Senior Assistant, the rule of reservation, as prescribed under Rule 22 of the Rules, should have been adhered to and two posts of Senior Assistants should have been filled up from amongst the Scheduled Castes; and failure of the 1st respondent, to comply with Rule 22 of the Rules, is in violation of Art. 16(4) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE 1st respondent, vide proceedings dated 23.05.2015, appointed both the petitioners herein as Senior Assistants under the Scheduled Castes category. Thereafter, a representation was submitted by Sri T. Prabhakar -4th respondent herein on 03.06.2015 contending that, the eight vacancies of Senior Assistants, which were filled up by proceedings dated 23.05.2015, was from roster point No.53 to roster point No.60, in the cycle of 100 roster points stipulated under Rule 22(e) of the Rules; roster point Nos. 53 to 60 did not contain a roster point for members of the Scheduled Castes; both the petitioners were juniors to him; he was also a law graduate; and, as such, he should have been promoted as a Senior Assistant in one of the eight vacancies.