Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 43097 (AP)

M.Sreenevasa Rao S/o M Suryanarayana. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

WP/946/2014 · 2025-01-22

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 946 OF 2014 Between: M.Sreenevasa Rao S/o M Suryanarayana, Occ: Clerk. The Farmers Service Cooperative Society Limited No 10087, Bhimadole, West Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Cooperation Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative, Societies , Government of Andhra Pradesh Nampally, Hyderabad 3. The District Cooperative Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District 4. The Divisional Cooperative officer, Eluru, West Godavari District 5. The Farmers Service Cooperative Society Limited No 10087, Bhimadole, West Godavari District Represented by its Administrator/ Sub-Divisional Cooperative Officer. 6. Ramisetty Rambabu S/o Veeraswamy, Occ: Clerk, The Farmers Service Cooperative Society Limited No 10087, Bhimadole,West Godavari District. ...Respondents <1 - 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, order or direction more particularly one in the natSre of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 5th respondent is i|%uing proceedings in Establishment No 1/2013 dated 30-12-2013 in promoting the 6th respondent as Secretary/Managing Director to the 5th respondent society as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the service conditions of the employees and consequently set a side proceedings in Establishment No 1/2013 dated 30-12-201.3 issued by the 5th respondent and promote the petitioner to the post of the Secretary/Managing Director in the 5th respondent society by duly taking into consideration seniority-Cum-Merit. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014fWPMP. NO: 1030 OF 20141 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 stay the proceedings in Establishment No 1/2013 dated 30-12- 2013 in promoting the 6th respondent as Secretary/Managing Director to the 5th respondent society pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. L V S NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI K CHIDAMBARAM The Court made the following order: PHC010295472014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N / WRIT PETITION No:946 OF 2014 Between: M.sreenevasa Rao S/o M Suryanarayana. AND The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju Counsel for the Respondents: 1. Sri P.Durga Prasad 2. Ld. Govt. Pleader for Cooperation ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT{S) The Court made the following order: T The petitioner is challenging the promotion of the respondent vide proceedings dated 30.12.2013 as Secretary/ Managing Director of the 5*^ respondent society as an illegal and arbitrary act. 2. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as a clerk in the 5'^ respondent society on 03.05.1993 and that he was fully eligible for promotion to the post of Secretary/ Managing Director. It is submitted that the 6**^ respondent was appointed on 01.08.1998 and is evidently junior to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the -2- W.P. No.946 of. 6*^ respondent also possesses a degree in law as an addition^ qualification. The services of the 6*'' respondent were terminated in the year 2002. However, as per the directions of the High Court, he was reinstated into service. It is also submitted that the 6*^ respondent has continuously been absent from duties and submitted his resignation vide letter dated 24.01.2013. 3. The 5*^ respondent unmindful of the resignation submitted by the 6*^ respondent, promoting the 6*^ respondent as Secretary/ Managing Director on the ground that the 6*^ respondent possesses additional qualification i.e. a degree in law and post graduate diploma in computer applications. The petitioner is challenging the said promotion to the 6*'^ respondent on the ground that the 5 respondent ought to have followed the seniority and promoted the petitioner instead of giving undue credence to the additional qualification of the 6*^ respondent, which would not in any way be helpful for discharging the role of the Secretary/ Managing Director of the 5*^ respondent. 4. Challenging the promotion to the respondent, the present writ petition is filed. Grant of promotion or denial of promotion to any employee would depend upon the suitability of the concerned employee for the post. It is for the employer to identify a suitable candidate from and amongst the available employees for -3- 'c W.P. No.946 of 2014 promotion as and when there is a vacancy. It is better for the employer to be given the liberty of choosing the best available candidate from among its staff for promotion. Promotion possible / / granted to an employee based on suitability cannot be challenged in the writ petition more so when the employer has identified the suitable employee to discharge his/her role. Hence, the cause in the writ petition does not warrant interference of this Court. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. 6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT ^^GiST^R OFFICER //TRUE COPY// SEC To, 1. One CC to Sri. L V S Nagaraju Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. P Durga Prasad Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. K Chidambaram Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Cooperation ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:23/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.946 of 2014 Ax /o ov m|i fe/t 0 7 JUL 2025 1.3: r ■y-" DISMISSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS