APHC010543242013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 39066/2013 Between: 1. B.SRINIVASA REDDY,, S/O.LAXMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, SRI BRAMARAMBA MALLIKARJUNA SWAMI VARI DEVASTHANAM, SRISAILAM, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, BOKKULAKUNTA, TILAK ROAD, HYDERABAD. 2. SRI BHRAMARAMBA MALLAIKHARJUNA SWAMI VARI DEVASTHANAM, SRISAILAM, KURNOOL DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 3. SRI KALAHASTEESWARA SWAMIVARI DEVASTHANAM, SRIKALAHASTI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in 3rd respondent Devasthanam is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently 2 declare that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in 3rd respondent Devasthanam IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 48526 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider Petitioners case for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in 3rd respondent Devasthanam Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KARUPOLU NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR 2. G RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS RAYALASEEMAREGION) 3. T VENU GOPAL SC FOR ENDOWMENTS (RAYALASEEMA REGION) 4. A SREEKANTH REDDY(SC FOR ENDOW RS) The Court made the following: 3 Order:- Sri Kondaveti Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Work Inspector in the office of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Endowments Department, Kurnool, in the year 1990. Thereafter, his services were absorbed in Kalahasti Swamyvari Devasthanam, Srikalahasti, where the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineer. The petitioner was subsequently transferred and posted to Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Srisailam, in the year 2006. The petitioner was eligible for further promotion as Deputy Executive Engineer at Srikalahasti, as there were two vacancies. 2. However, on account of the petitioner’s service at Srisailam, his case was not considered. Pursuant to his efforts to secure promotion, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 01.05.2011 to the 1st respondent to consider his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer at Srikalahasti. The said proposals were sent to the 1st respondent. It is also submitted that the petitioner was repatriated to his parent institution at Srikalahasti from Srisailam, and ever since then the petitioner had been making efforts to secure promotion as he was fully entitled to. The 3rd respondent had sent a proposal to the 1st respondent on 14.09.2009 and followed it up with a further representation dated 12.04.2012. 4 3. It is submitted that the respondents did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on account of some preliminary enquiry which was initiated against the staff of respondent Nos.2 and 3, including the petitioner. It is further submitted that no charge memo was issued to the petitioner and no full-fledged enquiry was conducted. However, the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 30.10.2024, has issued orders of promotion to the petitioner, and the said orders are placed before this Court. It is also stated that the 1st respondent had endorsed the work of the petitioner and that there were no allegations of misconduct or misappropriation, and as such the petitioner was not found at fault. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court, on 21.01.2014, passed an interim order directing the 1st respondent to consider the proposal sent by the 3rd respondent and communicate the decision to the 3rd respondent for further action. It is submitted that the respondents have remained silent for all these years, and the 1st respondent has passed proceedings dated 30.10.2024 without referring to the interim orders passed by this Court. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that a counter has been filed on the issue and that the issue of promotion of the petitioner is to be dealt with by respondent Nos.1 and 3, and that the 2nd respondent Devasthanam has nothing to do with the matter. 5 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent has also filed a counter. It is stated therein that, pursuant to the request of the petitioner, the service particulars of the petitioner, approved cadre strength, and vacancy position of Deputy Executive Engineer were already communicated to the 1st respondent on 27.10.2009. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent requested the 1st respondent to implement the orders passed by this Court, that the petitioner was repatriated to the 3rd respondent after a lapse of five years, that he joined as Assistant Engineer in the 3rd respondent on 04.07.2022, and that disciplinary action is pending against the petitioner vide memo dated 07.09.2018. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the promotion extended to the petitioner is subject to vigilance case. 8. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the 1st respondent, and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record. 9. The grievance of the petitioner seeking promotion is addressed by the 1st respondent after a lapse of more than 12 years from the date of passing of the interim order of this Court. The proceedings of the 3rd respondent categorically state that there is no pending vigilance enquiry against the petitioner and that the allegations levelled against him were not found to be 6 true, and it was further held that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct in discharge of his duties. It is also noted that the 1st respondent has not complied with the order dated 21.01.2014 and that proceedings dated 30.10.2024 ought to have been issued much earlier in pursuance of the interim directions of this Court. The service of the petitioner as Deputy Executive Engineer would have been restored within eight (08) weeks from the date of the interim order. 10. The only reason assigned for not promoting the petitioner is the alleged pendency of some preliminary vigilance enquiry. The respondents have not placed anything before this Court to show the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner or how the same warranted denial of promotion. When the Commissioner has cleared the allegations as false and has categorically stated that there was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner warranting any vigilance enquiry, the respondents ought to have promoted the petitioner soon after the vacancy of Deputy Executive Engineer arose. Admittedly, even as per the letters addressed by the 3rd respondent to the 1st respondent, there was an existing vacancy of Deputy Executive Engineer from the year 2009 onwards. 11. Be that as it may, the 1st respondent has failed to comply with the orders of this Court for reasons best known to it. The orders of promotion ought to have been passed in pursuance of the directions of this Court dated 21.01.2014. Had the 1st respondent found that the petitioner was not entitled 7 to promotion, appropriate orders rejecting his case ought to have been passed. The silence exhibited by the 1st respondent is not acceptable. Passing orders on 30.10.2024 promoting the petitioner as Deputy Executive Engineer, while holding that none of the allegations were found to be true and that there is no vigilance case, has caused injustice to the petitioner’s service. 12. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner shall be treated as having been promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer with effect from 21.01.2014. The respondents shall disburse all consequential service benefits, in accordance with rules, to the petitioner with effect from 21.01.2014 in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer. 13. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 06.05.2026 PNS