APHC010039622019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 1810/2019 Between: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, . THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, STATE OF A.P. H.NO.24-2-157, 4TH 'LANE, LAKSHMIPURAM, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT AND OTHERS. ...PETITIONER AND 1. G GURAYYA, a ...RESPONDENT 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 toto issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with O.A.No.4530/2016 on the file of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the order dated 08-02-2018 in O.A.No.4530/2016 by holding as erroneous and contrary to law and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 suspend the operation of the orders dated 8-2-2018 in O.A.No.4530/2016 on 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.1810 of 2019 the file of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 dismiss the above writ petition by vacating the interim order dated 18.02.2019 passed in I.A No. 1 of 2019 in WP No. 1810 of 2019 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GP FOR SERVICES III Counsel for the Respondent: 1. D S SIVADARSHAN 2. DANDUGULA SATYA SIVA DARSHAN The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.1810 of 2019 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Assailing the Order dated 08.02.2018 passed in O.A.No.4530 of 2016 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal has directed to give promotion to the respondent as Librarian in the feeder category, the instant writ petition for a Writ of Certiorari is filed seeking to set aside the impugned order. 2. Facts germane to dispose of the writ petition may briefly be stated as follows: a) The respondent is an employee working as a typist in Government Junior College, Kintali. There are about three posts which are vacant in the cadre of librarian to be filled up by way of giving promotions from the feeder category in the cadre of typists. Up to the year 2002, as per the rules existing by then, 50% of the posts of librarian are to be filled by direct recruitment and 50% of the posts of the librarian are to be filled up by way of promotion from the feeder category. Even though sufficient vacancies are available to be filled up in the said 50% quota of the feeder category, the same are not filled up by way of giving promotions to the typists. The respondent was eligible and entitled to be promoted as librarian in the said 50% quota of the feeder category as per the vacancies available from the year 2011 to 2016. But for the reasons best known to the department, the said posts are not filled up and they are kept vacant. b) While so, the rules relating to the promotions are amended in the year 2016 with effect from 11.03.2016. As per the amended rules, the ratio was changed and 80% of the posts of librarian are to be filled up by direct recruitment and only 20% of the posts are to be filled up by way of promotion from the feeder category. Thus, the ratio relating to the feeder category is decreased from 50% to 20%. After the amended rules came into force, vacancies of the posts of librarian are filled up from the feeder category and promotion was not given to the respondent who is a typist on the ground that 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.1810 of 2019 there are no vacancies in the said 20% of the feeder category as the first three seniors are only entitled for the promotion from the feeder category and accordingly promotions were given to the first three senior typists. c) The respondent being aggrieved by the same, approached the Tribunal and sought direction to the petitioners herein to consider his promotion as per the earlier rules which are in existence up to the year 2016 as he was entitled to be promoted in the existing vacancies of librarians of 50% of the feeder category at that time and as the petitioners deliberately did not fill up the vacancies of the posts of librarians in the feeder category, he was deprived of his right to be promoted as librarian in the said 50% quota of the feeder category. d) The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions of both the parties, allowed the claim of the respondent herein and held that, when he was entitled to promotion in the feeder category of 50% quota and as the petitioners did not fill up the said vacancies at that time that the petitioners are not justified in refusing to give promotion to him on the ground that he is not entitled for promotion as per the amended rules. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-III, for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. 4. After considering the rival contentions of both the parties in this writ petition, we absolutely find no legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. Admittedly, there are sufficient vacancies in the feeder category of 50% of the posts of librarians between the years 2011 to 2016 which are to be filled up as per the rules in vogue at that time. The respondent is in the zone of consideration in the said 50% of the feeder category and even as per the seniority list prepared, he is eligible to be promoted as librarian. But for the reasons best known to the petitioners, they did not fill up the said posts of librarian in the feeder category of 50% during the said period. If the said posts are filled up at that time, certainly the respondent would have 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.1810 of 2019 been promoted as librarian in the said 50% feeder category. So because of the latches on the part of the petitioners in not filling up the posts which are vacant during the period from 2011 to 2016, the respondent is deprived of his promotion to which he is legally entitled. No reason whatsoever was assigned in the counter-affidavit filed before the Tribunal as to why the said vacancies are not filled up in the cadre of librarians during the period from 2011 to 2016 as per the existing rules at that time. 5. Now, learned Government Pleader for Services-III, for the petitioners would contend that there was a stay granted in I.A.No.1683 of 2012 to fill up the said vacancies and, as such, the vacancies are not filled up. But the said plea was not taken in the counter before the Tribunal specifically. It is a new plea now introduced in this writ petition. It is settled law that a plea sans a pleading to that effect cannot be taken into consideration. Further it is a belated plea now taken in this writ petition. Therefore, the petitioners are not justified in denying the promotion to the respondent by applying the amended rules when they did not fill up the vacancies in the cadre of librarians when the respondent was eligible and entitled to be promoted in the 50% of the feeder category as per the law vogue at that time. The judgment relied on by the learned Government Pleader rendered in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Raj Kumar and others1, is not applicable to the present facts of the case. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the fact that as the petitioners did not fill up the existing vacancies in the feeder category of 50% as per the rules in vogue at that time that the respondent was deprived of his promotion at that time and is entitled to his promotion as per the said rules which are in existence prior to the year 2016 and he cannot be denied promotion by applying the amended rules. As noticed supra, we do not find any flaw or infirmity in the said finding of the Tribunal. Therefore, we absolutely see no valid ground or merit in the present writ petition warranting our interference 1 Civil Appeal No.9746 of 2011 6 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.1810 of 2019 with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal is perfectly sustainable under law and the same is not liable to be set aside. 7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, confirming the impugned order of the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J ________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 06-11-2025 BMS