K L NARASIMHA RAO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three matters can be disposed of by a common order as they relate to the promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in the District Schedule Caste Cooperative Society Limited, Khammam (for short 'the Society'), and the parties are referred in this order as they are arrayed in Writ Petition No. 14946 of 1996.

(2.) One K.L.Narasimha Rao who is working as incharge Senior Assistant in the Engineering Wing of the Society, filed Writ Petition No.14946 of 1996, questioning the promotion of the 4th respondent S.Suryanarayana Sarma, who is no other than the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 14960 of 1996, as Senior Assistant vide proceedings Rc.No.Al/595/SC/90, dated 17-07-1996, of the Executive Director of the Society, by contending that he is the senior most among the categories of employees in the Society and in fact, working as incharge Senior Assistant since 1994. But, on the basis of the orders of this Court in Writ Petition 3631 of 1996, dated 29-02-1996, the 4th respondent has been promoted. He also stated that he preferred an appeal to the Chairman of the Society against this irregular promotion and as the Chairman failed to pass any order rectifying the injustice he was constrained to approach this Court, questioning the promotion of the 4th respondent.

(3.) At the stage of admission, having satisfied that the petitioner is the senior-most from the seniority list published by the respondent Society, I directed the respondents therein, to review the promotion of the 4th respondent and consider the claims of all seniors in accordance with rules and promote the person selected. When this order has not been complied with, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No.9 of 1997 to take action against the contemnors for flouting the orders of this Court. After notice the contemnors filed counter, stating that the 4th respondent filed Writ Petition No.3631 of 1996, by contending that he was the only qualified person for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, but the respondent was not considering his case for promotion on the ground that he has not put in minimum service of three years as Junior Assistant and they are trying to fill up the vacancy by a deputationist, though the Rule provides for promotion of a candidate who has put in a minimum service of two years in case candidate who has completed three years is not available. In those circumstances, this Court directed them to consider the case of the 4th respondent before filling up the vacancy by a deputationist. As he was not the senior-most candidate eligible for promotion, the Society did not take any action to promote him. Aggrieved by the said action of the Society, the 4th respondent filed Contempt Case No.626 of 1996, and though the Society brought to the notice of the learned Judge that there are seniors to him in the Society, the learned Judge directed the Society to give temporary ad hoc promotion to the 4th respondent and closed the contempt case. Pursuant to the orders in the contempt case, the 4th respondent was given temporary ad hoc promotion on 10-07-1996.