High Court · 2025

A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., D.No. 10-1 52,40 and 5th Floors Sri Sai towers, Ashoknagar, Meriddium Siri Company, Kanuru, Vijayawada Krishana District Represented by its Vice Chairman and [\/anaging Director Sri D.Nageshwar Rao, S/o; aged years District l\/anager, TSCSC Limited Nalgonda District, Nalgonda Smt.K.Siva Parvathi, District [,4anager, A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd Ongole Smt. D.Sharmila, Assistant lvlanager (General) APSCSCL, District Office Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District

6. Smt.P.Susheela, Assistant I\/anager (General) APSCSCL, Diskict Office Vijayawada, Krishna District

7. P.Syamala Rani, District lvlanager Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ranga Reddy District Lakdikappol, sth Floor Collectorate Complex, Hyderabad Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be ...RESPONDENTS pleased to issue a writ, order or directron more particurarry one in the nature of writ of fVrandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) decrare the action of the Respondenlcorporation in treating the post in the cadre of Asst. Manager (Gerr.) as backrog vacancy in 20'13, thereby denying the promotion to the post is iregal and arbitrary, (ii) decrare the promotion of Respondents 3 to 7 vide proceedings dated 13.03 2013 is whory iregar and arbitrary and consequenay review Departmental Promotion committee to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion before considering the Respondents 3 to 7 for the post of Asst. Manager (Gerl.), (iii) decrare that the petitioner is entifled for promotion to the post of Asst. Manager (Gerl.) w.e.f. .,,3.03.20.13 on with all consequential benefits, (iv) pass. IANO: 1OF2 019 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to consider the representation dated 16.10.2017 0f the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (General) with effect from 2O13 and batch. Counsel for the petitioner: M/S. K UDAYA SRI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI A. JAGAN Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI KALAMATA RAGHU BABU, SC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 7: _-_ The Court made the following: ORDER j I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.3873 of 2019 Q!pp[:6,". ao, 'bte Sri Justice P.sAM &0SHY) The challenge in the present writ petition is to. the promotion order granted to the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7 vide order dated 13.03.2013.

2. According to the petitioner, the said promotion granted to the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7 is per se bad, considering the decision of this High Court in W.P.No.34592 of 2013 which stood decided on 16.08.2017.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the rota quota policy applied by the department in promoting the private respondents was erroneous and which stood established in the judgment of this High Court in W.P.No.34592 of 2013 and batch petitions decided on 16.08.2017.

4. Having perused the pleadings and the documents attached to the writ petition, what is apparently evident is that there appears to have certain relaxation granted by the Management so far as the eligibility conditions to the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7 are concemed for declaring them eligible for promotion. Thereafter, the regular DPC was convened on

11.03.2013 and since the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7 were found suitable for promotion under the relaxed conditions, they were granted : 2 promotion vide order dated 13.03.2013. This promotion of unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7 was not challenged by any person at that point of time or at a later stage till the instant writ petition has been filed. The instant writ petition has filed much after the writ petition Nos.34592 of 2013 and batch petitions were allowed on 16.08.2017. The petitioner wants to apply the principles laid down in the said judgment for upsetting the promotion orders granted to the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7

5. lJpon perusal of record we find that the challenge in the afbresaid batch ol'writ petitions. the lead case being W.P.No.34592 ol 2013 rvas on a notification iss,ued by the official respondents on 16.03.2[tl3 that too in respect of remaining vacancies in the department treating it. to be backlog vacancies lbr thc reserved category groups. Even at that point of time, the promotions of the unofficial respondent Nos.3 to 7 were not questioned either in any of those batch matters and by efflux of time, the promotion orders granted to the unofhcial respondent Nos.3 to 7 have got confirmed and finalized q'ithout there being any objection.

6. In the given factual backdrop if we permit the petitioner who at the fag end of his career had has raised up the issuc trying to unsettle what has already stood :;ettled for so long a period from 2013 onwards till the writ petition filed n the year 2019, does not seem to be proper, legal and 1 justified.Thepetitionerhimselfhadnotagitatedthepromotiongrantedto theunofficialrespondentNos.3toTattherelevantpointoftimeinspiteof knowingfullywellthattheunofficialrespondentswerefrrstlynoteligible for promotion, then secondly, the unofficial respondents were also juniors of rhe petitioner. The petitioner accepted their promotion with wide open eyes and waived the challenge, if any, that was there for on the said promotion.Therefore,thepetitionernowcannotbepermittedatthisbelated stage to challenge all those promotions which were given effect to long back i.e., from 2013 and from which date the unofficial respondents have been di3charging their duties. Moreover, pending the petition' the petitioner also now has crossed the age of superannuation' 7 In view of the same, we do not find any strong case made out calling tbr interference to the impugned order' Accordingly' the instant wnt petition fails and the same deserves to be and is accordingly rejected' As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any' shall stand closed. No order as to costs. i i , i t t i : I I //TRUE COPY// SD/.N. SRIHARI ANT REGISTRAR SI SECTION OFFICER \ oT 'l . One CC to M/s. K. Udava Sri. Advocate tOpUCl ? 9n" CC to Sri A. Jaganj Advocate tOpUCl 3. Two CD Copies TJ GJP M--- HIGH COURT DATED:2910112025 + J o \ cl 1ir' ..)( 14: 0 2 lviAr 2025 * oF.SPATC,H t ($r z ORDER WP.No.3873 of 2019 REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @yf"s