IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITIONNos. 25537 AND 25538 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NO: 25537 OF 2022 Between: 1. G.Balasubramanyam, S/o. Late Sudharshanam, aged about 56 years, Junior Assistant, O/o. Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2. C.Subramanyam, S/o. Late Kondaiah, aged about 56 years. Junior Assistant, O/o. Principal Jr. Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Rep., by its Registrar (Admn), Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Secretary, Law Department, Secretariat, Velgapudi, Guntur District. 3. The Principal Dist. Judge, Chittoor District, Chittoor. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that iri the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction, to declare the impugned orders of the 3 Respondent bearing Dis.No.4856/2022, dated 02.08.2022 and Dis.No.4792/2022, dated 27.07.2022, rejecting the candidature of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in pursuance of the rd 13^ amended rules issued to A.P. Judicial Ministerial and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 2019 issued in G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 15.05.2019 under Rule 35 transitory provisions particularly Rule 35 (b) as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Arts. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being to opposed to orders in WP.No.953 of 2021 and batch, dated 20.04.2021 and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to consider the candidature of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Senior Assistants as per Rule 35 transitory provisions of G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 15.05.2019 i.e. A.P. Judicial Ministerial and Sub-ordinate Service Rules r/w Rule 5 of A.P. State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1996. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 Respondent no.3 to consider the case of the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant duly following Rule 35 transitory Provisions of A.P. Judicial Ministerial & Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 2019 issued under G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 15.05.2019 in consonece with judgment of the Hon'ble Court in WP.No.953/2021 and batch, dated 20.04.2021 by suspending impugned orders of the 3"'^ Respondent bearing Dis.No.4856/2022 dated 02.08.2022 and Dis.No.4792/2022, dated 27.07.2022 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI N. RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: SRI N. ASHWANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR SERVICES-II WRIT PETITION NO: 25538 OF 2022 Between: 1. P.Munikrishna Pillai, S/o. Late Kuppuswamy Pillai, aged about 59 years Junior Assistant, O/o. Ill Addl. District Judge, III Addl. District Court, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District. 2. G.Balasubramanyam, S/o. Late Sudharshanam, aged about 56 years. Junior Assistant, O/o. Principal Sr.Civil Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3. C.Subramanyam, S/o. Late Kondaiah, aged about 56 years. Junior Assistant, O/o. Principal Jr.Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. 4. A.V.R.S.Prasad, S/o. Late K.Venkateswarlu, aged about 56 years. Junior Assistant, O/o. First Addl.JuniorJudge, Pileru, Chittoor District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P., rep., by its Registrar (Admn), Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary, Law Department, Secretariat, Velgapudi, Guntur District. 3. The Principal Dist. Judge, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 4. T.Ravindranatha Reddy, S/o. and age not known. Senior Assistant, O/o. Xth Additional District Court, Thirupathi, now working under deputation in the office of the Principal District Court, Chittoor. 5. K.Giridhar Reddy, S/o. and age not known. Senior Assistant, O/o. Addl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Madanapalli, working under deputation O/o. Principal Sr.Civil Judge, Ponganur. 6. V.Chandraiah, S/o. and age not known. Senior Assistant, O/o. Sr. Civil Judge Court, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. 7. Althaf Basha, S/o. and age not known. Senior Assistant, Ilird Addl. District Court, Tirupathi. 8. G.Manjula, W/o. and age not known. Senior Assistant, 0/a. Senior Civil Judge Court, Puttur, working under deputation II Additional Jr. Civil Judge Court, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 9. G.Satyanarayana, S/o. and age not known, Senior Assistant, O/o. Sr. Civil Judge Court, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. ...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 a writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction, to declare the impugned order of the 3 respondent bearing Dis.No.4918/Estt/A0/2022, dated 03.08.2022, promoting the juniors to the petitioners as Senior Assistants in contrary to the amended rules issued to A.P. Judicial Ministerial and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 2019 issued in G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 15.05.2019 under Rule 35 transitory provisions particularly Rule 35 (b) as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Arts. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being to opposed to orders in WP.No.953 of 2021 and batch, dated 20-4-2021 and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to consider the candidature of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Senior Assistants as per Rule 35 transitory provisions of G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 15.05.2019 i.e. A.P.Judicial Ministerial and Sub-ordinate Service Rules r/w Rule 5 of A.P. State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1996. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 Respondent to consider the candidature of the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Senior Assistants by suspending the impugned order of the 3^^^ Respondent bearing Dis.No.4918/Estt/A0/2022, dated 03.08.2022 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI N. RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: SRI N. ASHWANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR SERVICES-II Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 9:— The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER rd '"V APHC010413392022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM W.P.Nos.25537 & 25538 of 2022 WRIT PETITION NO: 25537/2022 Between: G. balasubramanyam and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Honble High Court Of A P and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.N ASHWANI KUMAR ...RESPONDENT(S) WRIT PETITION NO: 25538/2022 Between: P.munikrishna Pillai and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Honble High Court Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner{S): 1.N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.N ASHWANI KUMAR 2.GPFOR SERVICES II ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 The Court made the following Common Order: fpe.Ho.6tesr,ja.fcaR R^ghunandanRao; As both these Writ Petitions raises a similar question of fact and law, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Order. The 1®* petitioner in W.P.No.25537 of 2022 is the 2""^ petitioner in W.P.No.25538 of 2022. He had initially joined as Process Server, in the Chittoor District Court, in the year 1986 and thereafter, he was promoted Field Assistant, in the year 1994, and promoted as Junior Assistant in the year 2005. The 2"^^ petitioner in W.P.No.25537 of 2022 is the petitioner in W.P.No.25538 of 2022. He had joined as Examiner, in the year 1999 and promoted as Junior Assistant in the year 2008. The 1 2. as petitioner in W.P.No.25538 of 2022 had joined as a process server in the year 1985 and promoted as Junior Assistant, in the year 1993 and he has now retired from service. The petitioner in W.P.No.25538 of 2022 had joined as Record Assistant, in the year 1995 and was promoted as Copyist and further promoted as Junior Assistant, in the year 2008. 3. The case of all the petitioners herein is that they were eligible to be promoted to the posts of Senior Assistant. However, G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 15.05.2019, which brought in the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial & Sub ordinate Service Rules, 2019 [for short “the Rules, 2019”], with effect from 15.05.2019, stipulated that any person seeking promotion to the post of Senior Assistant should have a degree, in any subject. It appears that the earlier Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003, which were 'W 3 superseded by G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 15.05.2019, did not contain any such provision. In view of the change in the qualification required for the post of Senior Assistant as well as other posts, Rule“35(b) was incorporated in the Rules, 2019. The said Rule is reads as follows:- 4. ‘35. Transitory Provisions:- a) b) In case of persons who are in service on the date of issue of these rules and who are otherwise eligible for promotion to the higher posts of category (2) to (10) and for whom a Graduation Qualification is now prescribed as a pre-requisite for such promotion, may be promoted, even though they do not possess the Graduation Qualification, but they shall be required to acquire the prescribed qualification within the period of five (5) years from the date of promotion. This concession shall be in force for a period of three (3) years from the date of issue of these rules.” The Principal District Judge, Chittoor had initiated the promotion 5. process by communication, dated 16.07.2021 to the presiding officers of the Courts, in Chittoor District, calling for the annual confidential reports and other records of 20 persons, who are in line for being considered for promotion to the posts of Senior Assistant. The names of petitioners herein were set out in the said list of 20 persons. Thereafter, the Principal District Judge, Chittoor by proceedings, dated 28.07.2021 had promoted 12 persons out of the 20 persons listed in the communication, dated 16.07.2021. None of the petitioners herein were promoted. 6. Thereafter, the Principal District Judge, Chittoor had again initiated a 2"'^ round of promotion by way of communication, dated 07.04.2022, — calling upon 13 persons to appear physically before the Principal District 4 Judge, Chittoor, on 13.04.2022 for an oral interview for promotion to the posts of Senior Assistant. This process ended in only two persons being promoted out of the said list of 13 persons. The promotion proceedings were issued, on 03.08.2022. In these proceedings, 28 persons were promoted to the posts of Senior Assistant. There seems to be a discrepancy between the notice, dated 07.04.2022, which called 13 persons only for the interview whereas 23 persons appear to have been promoted in the proceedings, dated 03.08.2022. The said discrepancy is not relevant for the purposes of this Case, and is not being considered. As the petitioners were not given promotion in the proceedings 7. dated 03.08.2022, the petitioners have challenged the said proceedings by way of these Writ Petitions. 8. It appears that the petitioners had also given representations for considering their cases for promotion, on the basis of the Rule-35(b) of the Rules, 2019 and the same had not been accepted. 9. The Principal District Judge, Chittoor has a filed counter affidavit. contending that though the petitioners would have been eligible, for promotion. by virtue of the Rule-35(b) of the Rules 2019, they could not be considered as the said Rule was in force only for a period of three years which ended, on 14.05.2022 and consequently, the request of the petitioners, for promotion cannot be considered. Vv 5 Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners were denied promotion on two occasions. Firstly, in the year 2021 and for a second time, in the year 2022. He would submit that the denial of promotion, in the year 2021 was within the three years period provided under the Rule-35(b) of the Rules 2019 and as such, the case of the petitioners could not have been rejected. 10. 11. In reply, Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the promotion proceedings of the year 2021 had not been challenged and as such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. 12. The petitioners, even in the absence of a degree, were entitled for promotion, to the posts of Senior Assistant, subject to complying with the other requirements, up to 14.05.2022. The petitioners were denied promotion during two rounds of promotions in the years 2021 & 2022. As there is no challenge to the denial of promotion to the petitioners in the year 2021, the same cannot be considered by this Court. 13. This leaves the challenge to the promotions made, on 03.08.2022. At first blush, the promotions made, on 03.08.2022 appear to be beyond the three years period provided under the Rule-35(b) of the Rules 2019. However, a closer look at these proceedings would show that the process for considering promotions had commenced, in April-2022. The benefit of the Rule-35(b) of the Rules 2019 was available to the petitioners at 6 that point of time. In such circumstances, the contention of the respondents, that the petitioners had lost the benefit of the Rule-35(b) of the Rules 2019 as the process had culminated, in an order of promotion only in August-2022 cannot be accepted. The petitioners had been given an opportunity of promotion, even in the absences of a degree qualification, subject to a condition. That right, which was available to the petitioners on the date on which the promotion process had started, cannot be taken away merely on the ground that they were some administrative difficulties due to which the order of promotion was passed beyond the time provided under the Rule-35(b) of the Rules 2019. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the Rule-35(b) of the Rules 2019 and there cases should have been considered even in the promotion proceedings, dated 03.08.2022. 15. As far as the 1®^ petitioner in W.P.No.25538 of 2022 is concerned, his case cannot be considered at this stage as he has already retired and the question of obtaining promotion subject to a degree being obtained would not arise. 16. In the circumstances, these Writ Petitions are allowed, directing the Principal District Judge, Chittoor to consider the cases of the petitioners, except the 1®‘ petitioner in W.P.No.25538 of 2022, by applying the relaxation available under the Rule-35(b) of the Rules 2019. The said exercise shall be 17. 7 m completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. In the event of the petitioners meeting all the other requirements, they shall be promoted to the posts of Senior Assistant with effect from 03.08.2022. Their seniority will be fixed below that of the respondents 4 to 9. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRiNiVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR n 'I i-! //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Registrar (Admn), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Secretary, Law Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Velgapudi, Guntur District. ' 3. The Principal Dist. Judge, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 4. One CC to Sri N. Ravi Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CC’s to GP for Law & Legislative Affairs, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:25/02/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.25537 and 25538 of 2022 1 2^ mar 2025 ^ Current Section ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS