1 APHC010220992021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 115/2021 Between: G. Bhaskara Rao ... Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj Department, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ... Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A. Rajendra Babu Counsel for the respondents : The Government Pleader for Services This Court made the following: 2 JS,J WP(AT) No.115 of 2021 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not issuing the notional promotion to the petitioner from 28.02.2014 on par with his juniors as per the seniority list issued by respondent No.4 on 18.03.2002 as illegal and arbitrary. A consequential direction is also sought to respondent No.2 to issue orders of notional promotion to the petitioner on par with his juniors. 2. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Bill Collector in Kollavanipalem Gram Panchayat, Prakasam District, on 01.07.1981. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant on 07.06.1994 and later to the post of Panchayat Secretary Grade-III on 01.02.2002 and posted at Chimanandipadu Gram Panchayat, Prakasam District. i) The 4th respondent, vide Memo No.2569/2000/Pan/A5, dated 18.03.2002, has prepared seniority list of Junior Assistants-cum-Bill Collectors of Zone-III consisting of Guntur, Prakasam and Nellore Districts. The petitioner was shown at Serial No.166 and his Juniors were shown at Serial Nos.184 and 194. The name of the petitioner was not shown in the tentative seniority list dated 28.02.2014 prepared for effecting promotion to the post of Panchayat Secretary Grade-II. Based on the report submitted by the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent vide proceeding No.23324/CPR&RE/B3/2013, dated 05.08.2014, promoted the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary Grade-II and consequential proceedings were issued by the 3rd respondent posting the petitioner to Kunkalamarru Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District. 3 JS,J WP(AT) No.115 of 2021 ii) The petitioner has addressed a representation to the 2nd respondent seeking notional promotion on par with his junior. The 2nd respondent vide Memo No.6522/CPR&RD/B2/2015, dated 12.03.2016, rejected the request made by the petitioner. The present writ petition is filed questioning the impugned proceeding dated 12.03.2016. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader argues that the list prepared by the District Level Committee is criteria to identify whether the petitioner is a provincialized employee or not. The report of the District Panchayat Officer, Prakasam District, shows that the petitioner has joined as Panchayat Secretary Grade-III on 01.01.2002 on conversion and was converted as Panchayat Secretary Grade-III from the cadre of Junior Assistant. On the representation made by the petitioner, the District Panchayat Officer has verified the records and found that the petitioner’s name was shown at Serial No.166 and was treated as provincialized employee. Furthermore, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.23324/CPR&RE/B3/2013, dated 05.08.2014, promoted the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary Grade-II and posted to Kunkalamarru Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District. Since the petitioner has not brought to the notice of the authorities regarding his name in the DLS report, his juniors were promoted and therefore, the representation was rightly rejected, and sought for dismissal of the case. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for the respondents. 4 JS,J WP(AT) No.115 of 2021 5. The point for consideration before this Court is, whether the petitioner is entitled for notional promotion on par with his juniors or not. 6. The petitioner joined as Panchayat Secretary Grade-III and his name was shown at Serial No.166. The petitioner is a provincialized employee, he is eligible for promotion to the post of Panchayat Secretary Grade-II and Grade-I on par with his juniors i.e., Mr. K. Subbarao and Mr.G.Suresh Babu, who were shown at Serial No.184 and 194. The 2nd respondent vide proceeding No.8268/CPR&RD/B1/2015, dated 14.03.2016, has relaxed the minimum service to one year and promoted 43 candidates as Panchayat Secretary Grade-I. By virtue of said relaxation, the juniors to the petitioner were further promoted to Panchayat Secretary Grade-I on 14.03.2016. 7. The only reason to reject the case of the petitioner was that his name was not shown in DLC report. The petitioner has joined as Bill Collector on 01.07.1981. After 13 years of service, he was promoted as Junior Assistant on 07.06.1994 and thereafter as Panchayat Secretary Grade-III on 01.02.2002. In the tentative list prepared by the 2nd respondent vide proceeding No.23324/CPR/RE/B3/2013, dated 28.02.2014, the names of K. Subba Rao and G. Suresh Babu were shown at Serial Nos.11 and 13 respectively. The petitioner was much senior to them, but his name was not shown in tentative promotion list prepared by the 2nd respondent, and the same was rectified by the 2nd respondent and the petitioner was promoted vide proceeding L.Dis.No.941/2013(pts)A4, dated 20.01.2015, issued by the 3rd respondent. Having rectified the said mistake, the respondents cannot reject the case of 5 JS,J WP(AT) No.115 of 2021 the petitioner without assigning any reasons, more particularly, when his juniors got promotion from time to time at regular intervals. 8. When a similar instance has fallen for consideration, the Constitutional Bench in Ajit Singh Vs. State of Punjab1, while laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her’s fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27: “Articles 14 and 16 (1): is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right. 22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the „State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws‟. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that: „there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State‟. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense “equality of opportunity” in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word “employment” being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16(1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be “considered” for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion, which is his personal right. “Promotion” based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to 1 1999 (7) SCC 209 6 JS,J WP(AT) No.115 of 2021 such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1). 9. Since the respondents have deviated and affected the right of consideration of the petitioner to the next higher post of Panchayat Secretary Grade-I and upwarded his juniors, the same can be extended in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right of consideration for promotion to the next higher rank cannot be overlooked, and moreover, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation. If the right of consideration for promotion is restored, the petitioner will be entitled for the differential benefits which he is entitled to. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition (AT) is allowed, by setting aside the Memo No.6522/CPR&RD/B2/2015, dated 12.03.2016, issued by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner for notional promotion to the post of Panchayat Secretary Grade-I on par with his juniors with effect from 28.02.2014. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ___________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM, J 21st April, 2025 cbs 7 JS,J WP(AT) No.115 of 2021 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION (AT) No.115 of 2021 21st April, 2025 cbs