CHANDRASEKHAR K Vs. J N T U

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to promote the petitioner as Special Category Stenographer in the pay scale of Rs. 1330-2630 with all consequential benefits, by treating him as person holding the substantial post of U.D. Stenographer. This Court while issuing notice, passed an interim order directing the Respondent No. 1 not to fill up the post of the Special Category Stenographer pending further orders on the writ petition, vide orders in W.P.M.P.No. 1962 of 1989. The respondent-University filed a vacate stay petition in WP.M.P.No. 2143 of 1989 stating that one C. Janakirama Raju has already been appointed as Special Category Stenographer. Therefore,interimorder has become infructuous,and this Court vide order dated 29-11-1989 vacated the interim order granted on 4-7-1989. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed W.P.M.P.No. 20172 of 1995 for amendment of the writ petition praying to quash the order in G.O.Ms.No. 156, dated 25-6-1987 and other proceedings in Rc.C5/1301/89, dated 25-5-1989. He has also filed W.P.M.P.No. 19800 of 1995 for impleadingrespondent No. 2. Both the W.P.M.Ps. have been allowed. As a result, prayer of the petitioner as on today is to direct the respondent No. 1 to appoint the petitioner as Special Category Stenographer and to quash the order of the Respondent No. 1 appointing Respondent No. 2 as Special Category Stenographer.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner was working as U.D. Stenographer and Respondent No. 2 was also working as U.D. Stenographer and respondent No. 2 was junior to him. He submitted that the petitioner was a direct recruite to the post of U.D. Stenographer attached to the Vice-Chancellor Peshi in the respondent- University on 8-10-1980 and his probation was declared having satisfactorily completed on 28-10-1981. Even in the order, dated 14-5-1987, he was shown as senior to respondent No. 2 as on 28-10-1981 on the date he completed his probation. As things stood that way, respondent No. 2 was promoted from the lower category to the U.D. Stenographer on 31-10-1983 and his probation was declared on 31-10-1984. Having regard to these facts, the petitioner's Counsel submitted that admittedly respondent No. 2 was junior to the petitioner in the post of U.D. Stenographer. Meanwhile, respondent No. 2 filed an application for his conversion to the post of Senior Assistant with the pay scale of Rs.1100-2050. That conversion was ordered on 31-3-1987. At that point of time, the petitioner has also filed one application for his conversion from the post of U.D. Stenographer to the post of Senior Assistant on 8-10-1988 and vide order dated 4-1-1989, he was also allowed to convert himself to the post of Senior Assistant. The order reads as under: "The appointment of Sri Chandrasekhar as Senior Assistant on conversion is purely temporary and he is liable to be reverted to his original post at any time without notice and without assigning any reasons for such reversion". Meanwhile, Respondent No. 2 sought re-conversion to the post of U.D. Stenographer vide his application, dated 9-1-1989 and he was allowed to be re-converted vide order dated 11-1-1989, but with effect from 26-10-1988. After his re-conversion, the post has been upgraded as Special Category Stenographer and the respondent No. 2 has been promoted as Special Category Stenographer vide proceedings dated 25-5-1989 with effect from 7-4-1989. The petitioner has also applied for re-conversion to his original post of U.D. Stenographer on 18-8-1989, but the same was not considered, even as on the date of filing of the writpetition. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) The main contention of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 was junior to him and his conversion from the post of Senior Assistant to the post of U.D. Stenographer has been ordered only to oblige him and further he has been promoted to the post of Special Category Stenographer with higher pay-scale, without considering the case of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned proceedings in promoting respondent No. 2 as Special Category Stenographer and in not considering the representation made by the petitioner for re-conversion to the post of U.D. Stenographer and the non-consideration of his case for the promotion to the Special Category Stenographer, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.