IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) APHC010298702019 rK. ^oe > o, o S.O Siht THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 14359 OF 2019 Between: B. Sreeram Praveen, S/o. Subba Rayudu, Extension Officer ( Grade-ll, O/o Assistant Director of Agriculture Aged 38 years, Agriculture ...PETITIONER AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Food and Agriculture Department, Amaravathi, AP 2. The Special Commissioner of Agriculture, O/o Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Government ofAndhra Pradesh, Chuttugunta Centre, Old Mirchi Yard, Guntur, Guntur District. AP 3. Joint Director of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Kurnool, Kurnool District, AP ...RESPONDENTS 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 writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions by declaring the Memo No.A5(1 )85/2019 dated 27.03.2019 issued by the 2'^'^ respondent and to direct the respondents to consider the Petitioner's claim for notional seniority in the cadre of AEO Grade-ll on par with his batchmates of 2012 Notification by declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in this regard as arbitrary. vindictive and as illegal arbitrary and violation of Articles Constitution of India. ^ 14 16 and 21 of the lA NOr 1 OF 2niQ^ Petition under Section IsfcPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to suspend the impugned Memo No. A5(1)85/2019 dated 27.03.2019 the 2 respondent with a direction to issued by consider the claim of the application for notional promotion. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C. SRINIVASA BABA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to The Court made the following; ORDER 3: GP FOR AGRICULTURE APHC010298702019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAV! the TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 14359/2019 [3396] Between: B. SREERAM PRAVEEN, S/O.SUBBA RAYUDU AGED 38 YEARS, AGRICULTURE EXTENSIONSION OFFICER ( GRADE-II, 0/0 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND AGRICULYE DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATHI, AP 2.THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE, 0/0 COMMISSIONER il AND DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OFANDHRA PRADESH, CHUTTUGUNTA CENTRE, OLD MIRCHI YARD, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. AP 3. JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, AP ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.C SRINIVASA BABA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR AGRICULTURE (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a writ of Mandamus, declaring the Memo No. A5(1)85/2019 dated 27.03.2019 issued by the 2"'^ respondent and to direct the- respondents to consider the Petitioner's claim for notional seniority in the cadre of AEO Grade-ll on par with his batchmates of 2012 m 2 Notification by declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in this regard as arbitrary, vindictive and as illegal arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” Heard Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the Petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Respondent No.3 I' had issued a notification, notifying the vacancies of 74 Agriculture Extension Officer, Grade-ll posts in the month of March, 2012. After selection 2. 3. process was o'i/er, 8 persons could not join in the said post, though they were selected. Learned counsel would further submit that two individuals have approached Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing an application seeking a direction to consider them in the vacant posts since they are eligible under merit in the place of vacancies where the persons would not join. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner after knowing the fact that the said persons who were given appointment in compliance of the orders of the Tribunal secured lesser marks than the Petitioner, approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.649 of 2013 which was allowed on 28.11.2014, directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that Petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Extension Officer, Grade-ll on 30.04.2015 by virtue of the orders of the Tribunal. The Petitioner has made a request to consider his seniority by placing him in appropriate place as per the merit along with his other batchmates, but that was not considered by the Respondent authorities. Then again, he has approached t the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2387 of 2017 which was allowed on 16.08.2017 r> 3 by giving direction to the Respondents to' consider the case of the Petitioner by giving notional seniority as per the merit. Learned counsel further submits that, in the light of the orders passed by the Tribunal, though Respondent No.3 has recommended for giving notional seniority to the Petitioner, the said proposal was rejected by. Respondent No.2 on the ground that the Petitioner ‘f was not born in the cadre by the date of seeking notional seniority. Learned counsel would further submit that the orders passed by the Tribunal has reached the finality, since Respondent authorities have not preferred any Writ Appeal challenging the said orders. Learned counsel finally submits that the Petitioner is entitled to have the seniority along with his batchmates as per the merit secured by the individual in the selection, however without any monetary benefit. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in The Government of A.P. vs. Dendukuri Venkata Narasimha Raju and others in W.P.No.2286 of 2014, dated 07.05.2025. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll would submit 4. that the impugned order does not warrant any interference of this Court since the order passed by Respondent No.2 is supported by the reasons that the Petitioner was not selected initially along with all batch mates, and that only by virtue of the orders of the Tribunal he is in service, and that he cannot claim notional security along with the batchmates. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that Court may pass appropriate orders. 4 5. There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner, initially appointed as an Agriculture Officer, on contract basis and worked as such. There is also no dispute that, pursuant to the notification issued by the Respondents for the appointment to the post of Agriculture Extension Officer Grade - II in March, 2012, being eligible, the Petitioner applied for the and secured 79% marks in the selection. Out of the total selected candidates, eight candidates have not joined in the said post. As such. Respondents have filled up two non-joining vacancies with one A.Naga Siva Sai and N.Ashok Admittedly, the Petitioner is more meritorious than the two candidates. On the representation submitted by the Petitioner, Respondent No.3 addressed a letter to Respondent No.2 in Roc.No.A3/1042/201 2, dated 23.01.2013 recommending the case of the Petitioner and also for his appointment as per his merit. Subsequently, as there was no response, the Petitioner approached the A.P.Adminstrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.649 2013, wherein, the learned Tribunal, by way of an interim order, was pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the claim of the Petitioner. Respondents have not complied with the said Order, the Petitioner filed C.A.No.446 of 2014 and on the other hand. Respondents filed V.M.A.No.862 of 2013. 6. As seen from the material placed on record, the learned Tribunal by clubbing O.A.No.649 of 2013 with V.M.A.No.862 of 2013 and C.A.No.446 2014, passed an Order dated 28.11.2014, directing the Respondents appoint the Petitioner in the non-joining vacancies as was done in the case of , was same Kumar. of As the of to 5 Sri N.Ashok Kumar and Sri N.Naga .Siva Sai, since the Petitioner is meritorious than the said persons. Subsequently, the Respondents by way of Proceedings in Roc.No.A3/1042/2012, dated 30.04.2015 appointed the Petitioner as an Agriculture Extension Officer Grade - II. 7. As the other persons were appointed in the year 2013 and the Petitioner was appointed in the year 2015, the Petitioner became junior to the persons, who secured lesser marks than the Petitioner. As such, the Petitioner made a representation dated 12.05.2016 to the Director of Agriculture requesting to restore his seniority with retrospective effect i.e., from the date on which Sri N.Ashok Kumar and Sri N.Naga Siva Sai-were appointed. As no action was taken by the Respondents on the said representation, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of O.A.No.2387 of 2017, wherein, the Tribunal vide Order dated 16.08.2017 directed the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner pertaining to notional seniority on par with “f his batchmates. Inspite of the said orders, as the Respondent - Authorities have not taken any action, the Petitioner again made representations dated 30.08.2017 and 14.09.2018 for restoring his seniority with retrospective effect without monetary benefits. On that. Respondent No.3 addressed a letter in Roc.No.A3/1042/2012, dated 29.09.2018 to Respondent No.2 informing about the representations of the Petitioner and to take necessary steps. Again the Petitioner submitted another representation dated 03.12.2018. Eventually, Respondent No.2 issued Memo No..A5(1)85/2019, dated 27.03.2019 rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for notional promotion for the reason that V 6 retrospective promotion cannot be granted to the Petitioner as he was not born in the cadre by the date of seeking notional seniority. As seen from the above mentioned facts and the material placed record, it is clear that, inspite of the merit of the Petitioner than Sri N.Ashok Kumar and Sri N.Naga Siva Sai, who were appointed in the non-joining vacancies and the orders passed by the learned Tribunal and also the timely representations of the Petitioner, the Respondents have failed to consider the case of the Petitioner for notional seniority. Therefore, the contention of the Respondents that the Petitioner was not born in the cadre by the date of seeking notional seniority, is not tenable. The Petitioner, for his no fault, cannot be deprived of his notional'seniority, that too without any monetary benefit, for the administrative laches on the part of the Respondents. The judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2286 of 2014 referred to supra, which is relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, wherein, less meritorious candidates than the applicants therein, appointed as Special Grade Teachers, is squarely applicable to the case of the Petitioner. Law is well settled that when there is a delay in issuance of the appointment orders to certain candidates due to administrative reasons, such delay cannot be attributable to the candidates and such type of candidates, who are appointed at a later point of time, are entitled to the benefit of seniority on part with their batch-maters.: In view of the same, the Petitioner herein, who is meritorious than the above mentioned two persons, is entitled for the notional seniority without any monetary benefit. 8. on were li 7 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to place the Petitioner in the seniority list notionally at appropriate place, without any monetary benefit, in the cadre of Agriculture Extension Officer, Grade-ll on par with his batchmates of 2012 notification, forthwith. There shall be order as to costs. no As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur on this Thursday, Twenty Sixth day of June, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, The Principal Secretary, Food and Agriculture Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, AP The Special Commissioner of Agriculture, O/o Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Chuttugunta Centre, Old Mirchi Yard, Guntur, Guntur District. AP Joint Director of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Kurnool, Kurnool District, AP One CC to Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, Advocate [OPUC] Two CC’s to GP for Agriculture, High Court of A.P. at Amarav^ti[OUT] Three CD Copies. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:26/06/2025 ORDER WPNo.14359 of 2019 15 JUL 2025 i *vCl!n«ntSwtiQuX*^ o Co ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS