IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION Nos. 32053 OF 2018 AND 20245 OF 2014 WRIT PETITION NO: 32053 OF 2018 Between: R.Laxmi Prasad, S/o.Venkata Ganga Rao, Aged about 59 Deputy Executive Engineer, A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Eluru, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER years, Occ; AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Special Chief Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velgapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Head Office, Vijayawada ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the may nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the 6“" roster point meant for Physically abled persons by following G.O.Ms.No.188 GAD Department dated 18.12.2017 in the promotion orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.247, School Education (Training) Department, dated 23.08.2018, along with others is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and violation of principles of Natural Justice apart from violation of service rules on the subject with a consequential direction to the Respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the posi^fixecutive Engineer in the 6**^ roster point meant for Physically abled pir|ons<-Jy following G.O.Ms.No.188 GAD Department dated 18.12.2017 . ’i.v. with all consequential benefits in interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the 6th roster point meant for Physically abled persons by following G.O.Ms.No.188 GAD Department dated 18.12.2017 forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO NARRA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V. CH. NAIDU, SC FOR HOUSING CORPORATION/APEWIDC WRIT PETITION NO: 20245 OF 2014 Between: R. Laxmi Prasad, S/o.Venkata Ganga Rao, Aged about 55 years, Occ; Deputy Executive Engineer, 0/0. A.P Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Guntur, Guntur District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Managing Director, A.P Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Hyderabad. 3. The Executive Engineer, A.P Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Guntur Division, Guntur ...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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the claim of the petitioner for notional promotion in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer on par with his batchmates w.e.f. 19-10-2000 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the respondents to considering the claim of the petitioner for notional promotion in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer on par with his matchmates w.e.f. 19-10-2010 by taking into consideration of his initial appointment Executive Engineer on 26-12-1986 on consolidated pay as was done in the case of one Mr. V.Adinarayana, in Memo No. E1/1760/MD/APEWIDC/20 09 dated 1-9-2012 with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice. as I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014fWPMP. NO: 25384 OF 2Q14\ 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 2"'^ respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for assignment of notional seniority with effect from 19-10-2000 by disposing the representation dated 8-52014 and 13-6-2014 of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO NARRA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI V. CH. NAIDU, SC FOR HOUSING CORPORATION/APEWIDC The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 1 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NOS.32053 OF 2018 AND 20245 OF 2014 COMMON ORDER: Since the subject matter in both the writ petitions is one and the both the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order. same, 2. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Narra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.Ch.Naidu, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. State Housing Corporation, appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner submitted his representation to consider his promotion even under the category of differently abled person quota, that was erroneously rejected vide orders dated 06.06.2018 by the 2^^^ respondent-Managing Director, A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, counsel for the petitioner would further submit that one V.Lakshman Reddy, who is his junior, was promoted earlier to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner was retired from services in the year 2019 during the pendency of the present writ petitions. In fact, the petitioner has approached this Court for the sake of his promotion by W.P.No.20245 of 2014 seeking notional promotion in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer on par with his batchmates with effect from 19.10.2000 by Taking into consideration his initial 3. Learned 2 appointment as Executive Engineer dated 26.12.1986 on consolidated pay. Learned counsel would further submit that his representation was rejected stating that he is not falling under the purview of category stipulated at Point Nos.6, 31 and 56 in Roster of Reservation (ROR). Learned counsel across the Bench has filed a copy of his Service Register, which would show that his appointment is under physically handicapped category. Final seniority list which is prepared at the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers of APEWIDC, Annexure-I, dated 01.01.2014 also would show that his category is OC-PHC. That being the case, rejecting his candidature on the point that he is not falling under Point Nos.6, 31 and 56 is not tenable under law. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation would submit that regarding the consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for the sake of promotion under PHC quota may be considered in the light of the entry in the Service Register which is supported by the final seniority list. Standing Counsel fairly conceded the same and would submit that Court give appropriate directions in this regard. 4. Learned may Considering the submissions made, as rightly put by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Memo dated 06.06.2018 which was issued by the 2 respondent-Managing Director stating that his case does not come under the purview of Point Nos.6, 31 and 56 in ROR, does not stand for the scrutiny of law. The reason for Point No.6 is meant for physically challenged 5. nd women 3 16? category, Point No.31 is meant for Deaf and Dumb and Point No.56 is meant for Physically Handicapped Quota i.e. for differently abled person. When there is no dispute about the roster points, which are meant for the otherwise abled persons, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.188, General Administration (Ser-D) Department, dated 18.12.2017, which pertains to the reservation in promotion to the differently abled employees by making necessary amendment to A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the case of the petitioner needs consideration. In that regard, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, however directing the respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner under differently abled quota under PHC, after verifying the corresponding entries in the Service Register of the individual which are placed on record before this Court, and take appropriate decision, according to governing rules and law, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ’ SECT^N OFFICER To, 1. The Special Chief Secretary, School Education Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velgapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Head Office, Vijayawada. 3. The Executive Engineer, A.P Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Guntur Division, Guntur 4. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Narra, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri V. Ch. Naidu, SC for Housing Corporation/APEWID C [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies. ssb ■ ^ HIGH COURT n DATED:06/05/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.32053 of 2018 and 20245 of 2014 rPy'o L- Co *■ 0^0- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS