APHC010122692011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 30187 of 2011 Between: 1. ILLA ANANDA NIVAS,EG DIST, S/O VENKATA RATNAM, WORKING AS MANAGER, NADAVAPALLI GROUP TEMPLES, KATRENIKONA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, RESIDENT OF NADAVAPALLI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. ASST COMMISSIONER EG DIST ANOTHER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH, BOGGULAKUNTA, TILAK ROAD, HYDERABAD. ...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 or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the guidelines issued by the second respondent in U.O.Note in Rc.No.D2/751/2011, dated 10.02.2011 and the consequential proceedings issued in Rc.No.B1/98/2011, dated 29.07.2011 by the first respondent and fixation of seniority in the seniority list prepared on the even date by the first respondent, by counting the seniority of the petitioner from 01.09.1988 istead from 19.03.1982, as illegal, arbitrary, against the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1478 Revenue (Endts.VI) Department, dated 17.11.1986 and set aside the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to count the seniority of the petitioner from 19.03.1982 in the category of Junior Assistant with all consequential benefits flow there from including grant of appropriate place in the seniority list and promotion etc. 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V S S S RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s: "…to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the guidelines issued by the second respondent in U.O. Note in Rc.No.D2/751/2011, dated 10.02.2011 and the consequential proceedings issued in Rs.No.B1/98/2011, dated 29.07.2011 by the first respondent and fixation of seniority in the seniority list prepared on the even date by the first respondent, by counting the seniority of the petitioner from 01.09.1988 instead from 19.03.1982, as illegal, arbitrary, against the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1478 Revenue (Endts.VI) Department, dated 17.11.1986 and set aside the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to count the seniority of the petitioner from 19.03.1982 in the category of Junior Assistant with all consequential benefits flow there from including grant of appropriate place in the seniority list and promotion, etc., and pass such other orders….." 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the respondent No.1 has prepared a provisional seniority list of Junior Assistants working in East Godavari District, vide proceedings in Rc.No.B1/98/2011, dated 29.07.2011 and called for objections and the petitioner filed objections to the provisional seniority list prepared by the respondent No.1 and without considering the objections raised by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 has finalized the seniority list, vide proceedings in Rc.No.B1/98/2011 dated 29.07.2011. 4 3. The said proceedings are assailed in the present Writ Petition on the grounds that the date of granting of scales is not the criteria for fixing the seniority and the said action of counting the seniority from the date of granting of scales is quite contrary to Rule 12 of the Rules. As the seniority list is prepared pursuant to the directions issued by the respondent No.2, the petitioner approached this Court. As per the guidelines, the respondent No.1 has to send the report along with the objections to the respondent No.2. There was no direction from the respondent No.2 to finalize the seniority list. Since the provisional seniority list was prepared by the respondent No.1 in view of the guidelines issued by respondent No.2 in U.O. Note in Rc.No.D2/751/2011, dated 10.02.2011, the respondent No.1 has no authority or jurisdiction to finalize the seniority list, except sending the objections along with his report. Therefore, preparation of final seniority list dated 29.07.2011 by respondent No.1 is contrary to the U.O. Note, dated 10.02.2011 issued by respondent No.2. 4. It is further stated that in view of the above rule position, for all purposes the petitioner’s date of seniority has to be counted from 19.03.1982 and not from 01.05.1990, as counted by the respondent No.1. Therefore, the action of respondent No.1 in not counting the seniority from the date of initial appointment is illegal, arbitrary and against the rules. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner had already retired from service and therefore he is not entitled for the relief. 5 6. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. 7. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of West Bengal and others Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi and others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3512, held in the following extracted manner: "That even recognizing the promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation." 8. After careful persuasive of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (referred supra), the promotion only becomes effective on the assumption of duties and the representation of the respondents that the petitioner was superannuated was not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the said principle is squarely applicable to the petitioner herein, as he was superannuated. Even assuming that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as claimed by him, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (referred supra). 9. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 11.07.2025 siva 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.30187 of 2011 Date: 11.07.2025 siva