K VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. I V NAGESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order, dated 9. 1. 2003 in O. A. No. 6899 of 2001 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') by virtue of which the Tribunal has directed to review the promotions of respondent No. 1 and the petitioner as Senior Assistant as per their relevant seniority and eligibility according to Rules and regulate the consequential promotions as Superintendents accordingly.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant on 10. 5. 1986 in the Department of Technical Education and then he passed the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-l in the month of November, 1988 and he is eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. As per the General Rule 4 (ii) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962, a panel was prepared consisting of all the eligible candidates for the year 1989-90 including his name, for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. The name of the first respondent was not included in the panel prepared for the year 1989-90, as he could not pass the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-l, which is a pre-requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. As there were vacancies which had arisen on 10. 5. 1990, petitioner's name was considered for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and, accordingly, he was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant by orders of the second respondent dated 12. 09. 1990 and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent vide proceedings of the second respondent dated 25. 9. 2001. The petitioner's promotion to the post of Senior Assistant was not challenged by the first respondent at any point of time and waited till he got his promotion to the post of Superintendent and after a lapse of considerable period, the first respondent filed O. A. No. 6899 of 2001 before the Tribunal challenging the proceedings dated 25. 09. 2001. The relief sought for by the first respondent is very ambiguous, as he is not sure in which post his seniority to be fixed. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent has not challenged his promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in O. A. No. 6899 of 2001, but he challenged the proceedings dated 25. 09. 2001 whereunder he was promoted to the post of Superintendent. Though the first respondent has not challenged his promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, the Tribunal has erroneously directed the official respondents to review the promotions of the petitioner and the first respondent in the category of Senior Assistant and regulate the consequential promotions. Even though, the claim of the first respondent about the seniority in the category of Senior Assistant is barred by limitation as per Section 21 (i) (a) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the Tribunal has erroneously entertained the O. A. The presumption of the Tribunal that no pane! is required to be prepared for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant is contrary to the General Rule 4 (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962. The petitioner's name was included in the panel period from 1. 11. 1989 to 30. 4. 1990 and also panel period from 1. 5. 1990 to 31. 8. 1990 for the post of Senior Assistant, but due to administrative delay, he was promoted by order dated 12. 9. 1990 and in fact his promotion has to be preponed to the above said panel period as the vacancies of Senior Assistant post were available during the said panel period and he was fully qualified to hold the post. Therefore, the impugned order dated 9. 1. 2003 passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set-aside.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 2 to 4 filed counter stating that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 10-5-1986 and passed the Account Test for Subordinate Officers Part-l in the month of November, 1988. There were 2 vacancies of Senior Assistant in zone-l during the Half Yearly Panel with effect from 1 -11 -1989 to 30. 4. 1990 and also one vacancy arose on 10. 5. 1990. As on the date of 1st November, 1988, respondent No. 1 did not pass the Account Test for Subordinate Officers Part-l, which is requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, whereas the petitioner had passed Account Test for Subordinate Officers Part-l during the month of November,1988 and eligible to include his name in the Half Yearly Panel commencing from 1st November,1989 as per G. O. Ms. No. 456 G. A. (Ser-B) Department, dated 9-8-1989. Subsequently, Government in their G. O. Ms. No. 4, G. A. (Ser. D) Department, dated 3. 1. 1990 issued orders dispensing of Half Yearly Panels and in G. O. Ms. No. 438 G. A. (Ser. D) Department, dated 16. 7. 1990 ordered that the list in operation on the date of commencement of the yearly panel shall continue to be valid and operative till 31-5-1990 and whereas the list that has to be prepared on the basis of reckoning yearly panels shall be prepared 1st November, 1989 which shall also cease to be in force as on 31. 8. 1990. Accordingly, a panel has to be prepared reckoning 1st November, 1989 as the qualifying date for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. Respondent No,1 passed Account Test Part-l during the month of August, 1990 and he is not eligible to include his name, for the panel period 1989-90, whereas the petitioner is fully qualified to promote in the panel period from 1st November,1989 to 30-04-1990 and also panel period from 1-5-1990 to 31. 08. 1990. The promotion of petitioner was ordered on 26. 9. 1990 due to Administrative delay and in fact his promotion has to be preponed to the panel period from 1. 11. 1989 to 31. 5. 1990 as the vacancies of Senior Assistant were available during the said panel period and the petitioner was fully qualified to hold the post. Further, it is stated that respondent No. 1 did not challenge the promotion orders of the petitioner from the post of Junior Assistant to Senior Assistant but all of a sudden he challenged the further promotion order of the petitioner as Superintendent and also to review the promotions in the category of Senior Assistant. As per General Rule 4 (ii) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962, the panels are relevant for the purpose of promotions. During the panel year 1989-90, respondent No. 1 was not qualified for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, therefore, his name was not taken into consideration, whereas the petitioner was fully qualified to hold the post of Senior Assistant, hence, his name was considered for the panel period 1989-90 and promoted as Senior Assistant. As the petitioner having all requisite qualifications for the promotional posts, accordingly he was promoted from Junior Assistant to Senior Assistant and further promoted from Senior Assistant to Superintendent and said promotions were effected as per seniority, eligibility and as per Rules and said promotional orders are valid and justified.