APHC010236562010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 21817/2010 Between: 1. K. SURESH KUMAR, ANANTHAPUR DIST., S/O. K. PENNAIAH S.A. IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION Z.P. (B) HIGH SCHOOL, KANEKAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE COMMR DIR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION 4 ORS, ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANANTHAPUR. 3. M THABITHA, S.A. IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS, HINDUPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 4. K RAMANJANEYULU, S.A. IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION NOW WORKING AT ZPHS SEVAMANDIR, PARIGI MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 5. THE ANDHRA PRADESH ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.21817 of 2010 pleased toto pass orders particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the impunged orders of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.1645/A2/A3/2002 dated 27.10.2002 in so far as the 3rd respondent is concerned and the judgment of the Hon'ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6482 of 2007 dt. 26.03.2010 as arbitrary, illegal, miconceived and violative of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner w.e.f from the date of promotion of his juniors IA NO: 1 OF 2010(WPMP 27757 OF 2010 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 case of the petitioner for Head Master / Mandal Educational Officers Promotion basing on his seniority in the DSC merit list on par with his juniors in the cadre of PET pending disposal of the above writ petition IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents to assign notional service and seniority to the petitioner from the date of 3rd respondent’s promotion who is now repatriated to her original cadre; ie w.e.f the date of her promotion in ZP schools ie., 27.10.2002 and consider for further promotion and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.21817 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Challenging the order dated 26.03.2010 passed in O.A.No.6482 of 2007 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereby the application filed by the petitioner to declare the action of the respondents in not assigning seniority and service to him with effect from 27.10.2002, on par with the 3rd respondent therein, who is his junior as per his ranking in the DSC-1998, as arbitrary and illegal was dismissed, the present Writ Petition has been preferred. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-III, for the respondents. 3. Facts germane for disposal of this Writ Petition may briefly be stated as follows: The petitioner was originally appointed as School Assistant and he was posted in Zilla Parishad High School of Agali. In the DSC-1998 ranking, he secured 3rd rank. The 3rd respondent is junior to him as she secured 22nd rank in DSC-1998. Therefore, obviously the petitioner is senior to the 3rd respondent. While so, a vacancy arose in the department for the purpose of promoting the petitioner, who is a senior in the year 2002. But without promoting the petitioner in the said vacancy, the 3rd respondent, who is working in Government School was promoted and posted in the vacancy in the Zilla Parishad High School. Consequently, the petitioner was deprived of his promotion in the year 2002. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the higher post in the year 2006, i.e., after four years from the date on which he was eligible to be promoted. After the School Education Subordinate Service Rules were quashed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in M.Keshavulu and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others1, the 3rd respondent was repatriated to her parent department i.e., to 1 2003 SCC OnLine AP 903 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.21817 of 2010 the Government School. But the petitioner was not given the seniority from the date on which he was eligible to be promoted in the year 2002. Therefore, he lost service of four years in his promotional post. So he has approached the Tribunal by way of filing an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act to declare the action of respondents in not assigning the seniority and service to him with effect from 27.10.2002, as per his ranking in DSC- 1998. But the Tribunal dismissed the said application on the ground that, as on the date of giving promotion that there is only one vacancy in the promotional post in the Girls School, and as such, no relief as sought for can be granted to the petitioner. 4. The said ground on which the Tribunal has dismissed the application and denied relief to the petitioner is undoubtedly erroneous and unsustainable. It is significant to note here that the fact that the petitioner was eligible to be promoted in the vacancy that was available in the year 2002 is not disputed or denied by the respondents. The same is categorically admitted. Therefore, when he was eligible to be promoted in the year 2002 itself, he ought to have been promoted at that time. But a grave error has been committed by the concerned authority in filling up the said promotional post by bringing a person from the other department i.e., from Government High School and filling the said promotional post in the Zilla Parishad Department. Therefore, on account of the mistake committed by the authorities in the department, grave injustice has been done to the petitioner. Even subsequently, when the 3rd respondent was repatriated to her parent department and when the said post fell vacant, no seniority was given to the petitioner from the date on which he was found eligible to be promoted. The Tribunal did not appreciate these facts, which ultimately led the Tribunal to arrive at an erroneous conclusion. 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.21817 of 2010 5. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The Writ Petition stands allowed. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to give notional seniority to the petitioner with effect from 27.10.2002 i.e., from the date on which he became eligible to be promoted to the higher post in the vacancy that was available at that time and all consequential benefits are also to be extended to him as per prevailing rules. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J _______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 24-03-2026 BMS