\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6719 OF 2020 Between: 1. Nimmaka Padma, d/o.Ramayya, aged about 32 years, presently working as Head Mistress, GTWAGHS, Mutyalu, Srikakulam district. 2. P.Vijayendrarao, s/o.Chinnayya, Hindu, aged about 38 years, presently working as Head Master, GTWAHS, Peddapolla, Srikakulam district. 3. K.Pavaneekumari, w/o.Purushotham aged about 32 years, presently working as Head Mistress, GTWAGHS, Samarelli, Srikakulam district. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The District Collector, Srikakulam district. 2. The District Educational officer, Srikakulam district. 3. The Project officer, ITDA, Seethampeta, Srikakulam district. 4. The Director of Tribal welfare, Tribal welfare department, Amaravathi Andhra Pradesh. 5. M.Bhaskararao, s/o.Not known. Major, working as School Assistant GTWAHS, Malli, Seethampeta, Srikakulam dist. 6. H.Sundararao, s/o.Not known. Major, working GTWAHS, Mall, Seethampeta, Srikakulam dist. 7. A.Bhaskararao, s/o.Not known. Major, working GTWAHS, Donubal, Seethampeta, Srikakulam dist as School Assistant, as School Assistant, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying ^ that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings No. 155/2019/N(TW), dt.03.03.2020 of the 1st respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, void and against the principles of natural justice, consequently setaside the same. one lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed 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 proceedings in No. 155/2019/N(TW), dt.03.03.2020 of the 1st respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G CHANDRA SHAKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7: SRI D BALA KISHAN RAO The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010109862020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6719/2020 Between: Nimmaka Padma, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The District Collector and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitloner(S): 1 .G CHANDRA SHAKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.D BALA KISHAN RAO 2.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP) 3.GP FOR EDUCATION (AP) The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “ to issue a Writ or Order or direction more particulariy one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.155/2019/N(TW), dt.3.3.2020 of the f®' respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, void and against the principles of natural Justice consequently set-aside the same....” 2 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners belongs to • Scheduled Tribe Communities and initially appointed as Secondary Grade 2. Teachers and later promoted as School Assistant in due course. The petitioners have requisite qualification to hold the post of Head Master Grade- I II. While so, the respondents prepared final seniority list of School Assistants working in Tribal Welfare Ashram Schools in Srikakulam District as on 01.06.2019 and the names of the petitioners were shown at Serial Nos.67, 95 and 96, whereas the names of the respondents 5 to 7 were shown at Serial Nos.68, 76 and 137 respectively. As the petitioners are qualified and seniors to the respondents 5 to 7, the respondents have promoted the petitioners as Head Masters Grade-ll, vide proceedings Rc.No.115/2019/N(TW), dated 09.08.2019 of the 1®‘ respondent. Accordingly, the petitioners joined their respective promotional posts and discharging their duties as Head Masters. While things stood thus, the respondents 5 to 7 made a representation to the 1®* respondent to consider their case for promotional post of Head Master. The said plea was rejected by the official respondents. Hence, the respondents5 to 7 filed W.P.No.10159 of 2019 before this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 26.08.2019 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners without applying the last limb of the second paragraph of the Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Tribal Welfare Educational Service Rules. In pursuance of the same, the 1®‘ respondent sought clarification from the 4**^ 3 • respondent, which is still pending. Meanwhile, the respondent passed the impugned order vide proceedings No. 155/2019/N(TW), dated 03.03.2020 reverting the petitioners as School Assistants. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. The 3'^'^ respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the respondents 5 to 7 belongs to Scheduled Tribe and initially appointed as SGTs with effect from 05.10.1986, 3. 05.10.1986 and 27.01.1988 respectively. Later they acquired TTC on 18.06.1986, 18.06.1986 and 08.12.1994. While working as SGTs, they have also acquired B.Ed., during October, 1997, August, 2010 and October, 1999 respectively. Therefore, they were promoted to the posts of L.F.L. Headmaster/School Assistants with effect from 18.04.2012, 19.04.2012 and 14.07.2012 respectively. It is further stated that the posts were actually sanctioned in the year 2010, but the promotion counselling to the posts of L.F.L. Headmaster/School Assistants were not taken even though the promotion quota posts are existing before the recruitment of Special DSC 2011 due to non-receipt of guidelines from the Director of Tribal Welfare, Andhra Pradesh. In the meanwhile, the directed recruitment candidates were appointed through DSC 2011. After receipt of guidelines, the promotions to the post of L.F.L. Headmaster/School Assistants were taken up to in April, 2012. Therefore, the respondents 5 to 7 made a representation to the m 4 authorities with a request to grant notional seniority before the candidates appointed through direct recruitment in 2011, in terms of the provisions contained in G.O.Ms.No.354, GA (Ser.A) Department, dated 11.05.1990, as there are promotion vacancies existing before the direct recruitment (Special DSC 2011). On considering the above, the respondents 5 to 7 were granted notional promotion in the post of L.F.L. Headmaster/School Assistants with effect from 06.11.2011 vide proceedings Rc.No.264/2015/H(TW), dated 22.06.2019 issued by the Deputy Director (TW), Seethampeta. The respondents 5 to 7 filed counter affidavit denying the 4. allegations made in the writ petition and stated that, based on the notional seniority granted to respondents 5 to 7 in the lower posts of LFL Fleadmaster/ School Assistants and other feeder category posts, who are eligible for promotion to the post of Panel Grade Fleadmasters at Serial Nos.66, 67, 68 respectively. Flowever, the case of the respondents 5 to 7 was not considered for promotion on the untenable ground that we have completed Intermediate after passing B.A. and the juniors were promoted as PG Fleadmasters and are not entitled for promotion in terms of Rule 4 of the A.P. Tribal Welfare Educational Service Rules. Flence, the respondents filed W.P.No.10159 of 2019 and this Court vide order dated 26.08.2019 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners. Accordingly, the District Collector Srikakulam issued Proc.Rc.No.155/2019/N(TW), dated 04.03.2020 promoting 5 • the respondents 5 to 7 to the post of Panel Grade Headmasters by duly reverting the petitioners in this writ petition. 5. Heard Mr.G.Chandra Sekhara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education, for respondent Nos.1 to 4 as well as Mr.D.Bala Kishan Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the respondents 5 to 7 have never made the petitioners as party to any of the proceedings. He further submits that the respondent ought to have seen that this Court directed to consider the case of the respondents 5 to 7, but never directed the respondents to revert back the petitioners herein. The 1®* respondent ought to St have given a notice, opportunity to explain the objections. However, the 1 respondent without giving any notice, without affording an opportunity, passed the impugned order, which is illegal, unwarranted, uncalled and against the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the petitioners are seniors to respondents 5 to 7 and accordingly, promoted as Headmasters. Further, there are number of persons promoted as Head masters in between the petitioners and respondents 5 to 7. As such, if really, the respondents 5 to 7 are qualified and eligible to hold the promotional post of Headmaster, the respondents ought to have reverted back the other candidates, without 6 touching the petitioners herein. He further submits that a Division Bench of . this Court vide common judgment dated 29.04.2014 passed in W.P.No.33950 of 2011 and batch, held that “100% reservation shall be followed to the local tribals in promotions, keeping in view the G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 10.01.2000”. If the respondents 5 to 7 are eligible, the respondents 1 to 4 have to adjust the respondents 5 to 7 by reverting the non-agency area teachers, who are working as head masters. He further submits that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.354, GAD, dated 11.05.1990, where under guided the procedure to be followed, in case of grant of notional seniority with retrospective effect stating that “if in the process of review/revision, it is decided to include the names of certain number of persons in the panel, the names of an equal number of persons included at the end of the original panel should be deleted from the same". The 1 respondent without adhering to any of the rules, seniority, principles of natural justice, high handedly issued the impugned reversion orders, without even giving an opportunity and as such. the impugned order dated 03.03.2020 is liable to be set aside. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 7. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, in terms of the provision contained in G.O.Ms.No.354, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 11.05.1990, the notional date of promotion may be taken into consideration for computing the qualifying length category for promotion to the next higher category and that the notional service of service in feeder may be counted for the purpose of declaration of probation also in the feeder category. However, the promotion to the higher post may be kept pending subject to the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.424 GA (Ser.C) Department, dated 25.05.1976. But there is no investigation into the allegations/disciplinary proceedings initiated against the He further submits that the respondents 5 to 7 respondents 5 to 7. were considered for promotion to the post of Head Master-Grade II, based on the directions of this Court in W.P.No.10519 of 2019, dated 26.08.2019. However, the petitioners have never challenged the aforesaid orders and as such, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 5 to 7 while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, subrpits that qualifications prescribed for the post of Headmaster Grade-ll is that the Teacher should have possessed Graduation and B.Ed., apart from passing requisite departmental tests. The respondents 5 to 7 possessed the aforesaid qualifications were promoted basing on the orders of this Court W.P.No.10159 of 2019, dated 26.08.2019 as per the in were implemented and the respondents 5 to 7 were promoted to the posts of Panel Grade Headmasters. 8 He further submits that the contention of the petitioners that they are seniors . to the respondents 5 to 7 is not tenable. The respondents 5 to 7 are senior- most School Assistants/LFL Headmaster, as the case may be in Agency Area. When the respondents 5 to 7 were promoted to the post of Panel Grade Headmasters in the agency area posts, the petitioners who occupied the agency area posts and juniors to respondents 5 to 7 are rightly reverted. Therefore, learned counsel prays to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Perused the record. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that. 10. the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.354, General Administration (Services) Department, dated 11.05.1990 as follows: “In this context where notional promotions are decided to be given with retrospective effect, the orders issued is the G O.Ms.No.62, General Administration (DPC-I) Department, dated the S"* February, 89 shall also be kept in view an the pane prepared on review/revision by the inclusion of fresh names should be restricted or limited to the number of persons whose names are included in the original panel. If, in the process of review/revision, it is decideddo include the names of certain number of persons in the panel, the names of an equal number of persons included at the end of the original panel should be deleted from the same. ” Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on 11. considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the opinion that, if the respondents 5 to 7 are eligible for the said promotion, the official respondents must revert the persons who are at the bottom of the original panel/promotion list. In the present case, the petitioners, who are in the middle of the panel list 9 have been reverted back to the position of School Assistants, which is legally flawed and violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 03.03.2020. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned St proceeding, vide No. 155/2019/N(TW), dated 03.03.2020, issued by the 1 respondent, is hereby set aside. Further, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioners in the post of Head Masters in their respective zones. No costs. 13. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P.VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The District Collector, Srikakulam district. 2. The District Educational officer, Srikakulam district. 3. The Project officer, ITDA, Seethampeta, Srikakulam welfare, Tribal welfare Andhra Pradesh. 5. One CC to Sri G Chandra Shakhar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Education, High Court of Andhra [OUlf Welfare, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 8. One CC to Sri D Bala Kishan Rao, Advocate [OPUCJ 9. Three CD Copies district, department, Amaravathi, Pradesh. [OUT] TF HIGH COURT DATED; 13/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.6719 of 2020 OF AN07^ ^ 0 1 APR ?0?5 ^ Current Section VAr ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS