APHC010201452020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 13118/2020 Between: K.harinarayana Reddy, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….. to issue a Writ Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not affecting promotion to the post of Executive Engineer inspite of availability of provision for promotion under Rule 177 Markets Act 1969 either by creating or by up-gradation of the post of DEE or transferring the post of EE from Central Market Fund Services and taking steps to fill up the posts available in CMF services with the juniors under the 2nd Respondent in CMF service and when the unification of 2 services is pending inspite of submitting representation on 7.7.2020 as illegal and arbitrary and violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the law laid down by the High Court reported in 2007 (2) ALD 89 and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the available posts under the control of 2nd Respondent as per the seniority with all consequential attendant benefits…….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner belong to Agricultural Market Committee Services governed under Agricultural Markets Act, 1966 and the Rules issued there under. Every Market Committee shall contribute 10% of its annual income to the Central Market Fund. The said fund shall be vested with the Government. It shall be administered by the Director of Marketing for the purpose of granting aid to the Market Committees for the first year after committees’ constituted etc. The Market Committee Rules, 1969 were framed under section 33 of the Enactment. Rule 177 provides constitution of services. The post of Executive Engineer is shown at item No.14(A). The post of Deputy Executive Engineer is shown at item No.14(B). Rule 179 provides appointing authority and method of appointment. The Government is the appointing authority for Executive Engineer (for short “EE”) and Deputy Executive Engineer (for short “DEE”). The post of EE can be filled by promotion from DEE from Marketing Department. Till 1984, the Common Seniority of all engineers in AMC Services and CMF Services were taken into account for promotion to the posts available in CMF. In the year 1984, G.O.Ms.No.407, Finance and Accounts Department, dated 31.08.1984 was 3 issued viz., Special Rules for CMF services under Section 33 of the A.P. Markets Act, 1966. The post of EE can be filled by promotion from DEE from by deputation of EE, if no qualified persons are available. In view of State’s re-organisation Act, employees working in AMC Services and CMF Services were bifurcated. Before bifurcation, one post of EE was available. Four posts are available in CMF in A.P. Since one post of EE is available at Nizamabad, the said post has gone to Telangana without there being any post of EE in the State of Andhra Pradesh. There are two vacant posts of EE’s available now in CMF services. Both the services of AMC and CMF come under the Commissioner and Director of Marketing. The petitioner made representation to the Commissioner and Director of Marketing stating that Common Seniority maintained before framing Engineering Service Rules and also stated the proposal for providing common services among the Government Marketing department, CMF and AMC services is under active process and the posts available in three services can be made available to all engineers working in Marketing Department. Since the 2nd respondent is taking steps to fill up two vacant EE posts in CMF services by promotion and since they are all juniors, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent dated 07.07.2020 stating that one post of Executive Engineer is kept under Telangana government and the same was vacant and at present there are three existing DEE’s in AMC and unless, the post is created or transferred from CMF, the 4 question of promotion to EE does not arise. But the respondents have not taken any action on the representation submitted by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court, vide order, dated 22.01.2025, has forfeited the right of filing of counter by the respondents under Rule 12(1) of Writ Proceeding Rules, 1977. 4. Heard Mr.P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II, for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, so far the respondents have not taken any action on the representation dated 07.07.2020. He further submits that as per the law laid down in a case of A.Ashok Vardhan Reddy and others vs. Smt.P.Savitha and another1, considering various Supreme Court Judgments, declared that “promotion being a condition of service avenues have to be provided. Stagnation in service without promotion is to be deprecated.” In the present case, though there is avenue provided not being implemented on the ground that there is no vacancy. Once the Rule provides promotional avenue, the same is bound to be implemented in true spirit and thereby the employee should get promotion. He further submits that, in view of 1 2007 (2) ALD 89 5 the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Government of India vs. P.Venkatesh2, wherein the Apex Court held that “such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice”. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to issue direction to the respondents to dispose of the petitioner’s representation. 6. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in the writ petition and prays to dismiss the same. 7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusing the entire material on record, without touching the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 07.07.2020, in the light of A.Ashok Vardhan Reddy’s case (supra 1) and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 2 2019 (8) SCALE 544 6 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J BMS