High Court · 2025

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 pleased to grant appropriate' relief more in the nature of writ of lvlandamus under Article 226 zzl oi the Constitution of lndia declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant "nZ (Language-) w.e.f. the date of availability of vacancy read wrth acquiring eligibility "quititication by the petitioner i.e., March, 2013 as arbitrary, illegal, anO discriminatory, malafide violating Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and issue consequential directions directing the respondents to forthwith consider and appoint the petitioner as ACTO (Language) by transfer in the existing vacancy w.e.f.'ine date of availability of the vacancy of ACTO (Language) read with acquiring eligibility and qualification by the applicant i.e., March, 2013 and further consider-the case for the post of ACTO / ACTO (Language) reckoning the notional seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of senior Assistant (Language) with all consequential benefits including seniority er: SRl. P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Petition Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES l&ll The Court made the following: ORDER I -) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA \VRI'I PETITION No.40636 0F 2016 ORDER: Pe t1l 'oner seeks a direction to consider hel' ca';e for promotion t,r tht post of Senior Assistant (Languaqe) cff':c tive from the date of rvailability of vacancy and further con sidt'r her case for appointr ient by transfer to the post of ACTO (L) l)ztsed on such plom.o.ion in the cadre of Senior AssistzLnt, rluly considering the rlpresentation dated 20'05'2015'

2. It is "he case of petitioner that she u'as initialllT' appointed as .Ju.t ttor Assistant in Commercial Taxes D€parl.rlent on compassionerr: grounds on 2O.Ol.2OO4' While wlrkir-r3 as such, she p,tssct a1l the departmental tests ihcluding Idar'virdee and Gujarati i-ar.5Juage test in 2O13 itself, therefortr, she bt came eligible for prom )tion to the post of Senio.r Assistant (l-ang:l age) existing at.-hat. .ime. It is stated, petitioner alone is eligilrl': for promotion to th( said post inasmuch as other Junior l\ssi'itants did not qualifv tlrt: aforesaid language test, therefore, auth')lities ought to h:Lr.r: p romoted her as Senior Assistant (LarLguz g:) in the year 201ll itsell against the vacancies which were avlri able. after acquiring, , rligibiliry by her i.e. in the year 201!;. Brrt. Lhe authorities <1rd not promote her despite maklng s e reral 2 representations and subse quently promoted her as Senior Assistant only on O1.10.20i4 against the regular post of Senior Assistant and not against the post of Senior Assistant (Language). Similarly, the post of ACTO (Language) under the jurisdiction of the 2"d respondent became vacant at the time of getting eligibility by petitioner for appointment to the post of Senioi Assistant (Language) According to petitioner' if the authorities promoted her as Senior Assistant (Language) either in March or April, 2Ol3 after completion of one year probation period, she would have get promotion as ACTO (Language) which post has become vacant for so many years because of non-availability of eligible Senior Assistant (Language)' It is stated, as per ru1es, if the qualihed Senior Assistantsarenotavailable,theauthoritiescanlrllupthepost of ACTO (Language) by considering Junior Assistants' that provision i! existing with regard to promotion of SC / ST candidates. Therefore, in view of the fact that post of ACTO was very much availabie in March 2013 and petitioner also became eligible for promotion of Senior Assistant (Language) or ACTO in March 2013 itself, the authorities ought to have promoted her eitherasACTo(Language)orevenSeniorAssistant(Language) in March 2O 13 itself, but the authorities did not consider her J case for sllc 1 Prr )Inotlon In those circumstances, petjtlor e r ls stated to have' ;lLacle several representations' latest k'ein1i the onedated2l.Oir;2015,however,tillnow'respondents'clirInot consider the satr : Aclrn t tedly, the post of Senior Assistant (Lang : lge) as we[1 as AC'T'I ) (Language) is very much availablc in A P' CommercialTar:..sSubordinateServiceRules.Inothr:rvords, the post o ' Se rtor Assistant (Language) 25 .*'r:11 as '\tlTO (Language) ts e.r isting in cadre of Senior Assistant as w':ll as ACTO. Ther,:forc trs long as Rules are not amended rerr ovit LE: the said posts, cven r,he Government is not having atrlr power and authority t,l dc lete the said posts by way of passinll any executive ordt:r irvoking Article 162 of the Constitr-rtion of lrrdia' Therefore oe thr ground that the Commissioner of Comnr'ercial Taxes, Sta-e o Andhra Pradesh issued proceedirLgs cated 17.05.2013 de l,: -1ng the posts of Senior Assistant (Languzr'ge ) or ACTO (Lan11uap1 ) and they shal1 not be filled up in future ir; not having any elfr:c t inasmuch as such proceedings are contl ary to statutory rules; 'ssued by the Government under :rorisro to the Constitution of India' Similarl g the Article 30:l o Commissione:rc,fCommercialTaxesbyproceeclirlgs(lated

15.05.201: i.c 2 days prior to issuing the aforesaid procee'1ings 4 dated 17.05.2013 promoted Sri N. V. Nagarajan as ACTO (Language) and petitioner was discriminated. Therefore looking from any angle, the action of respondents in not considering her case for promotion as well as appointment by transfer as ACTO against the post of Senior Assistant (Language) as well as ACTO (Language) as highly arbitrary, illegal.

3. The 2"a respondent Deputy Commissioner (CT) filed the counter afhdavit stating that petitioner's Application for considering her case for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant (Language) dated 3O-O5-2013 was disposed disclosing that no posts earmarked (either by the government /HOD) are available under Senior Assistants (Marwadi and Gujarathi) and no individual is working against the post of Senior Assistant meant for Marwadi and Gujarathi as on today in this Division' It is stated, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A P' Hyderabad 'issued Circular dated 17-05-20 13, on receipt of several representations, communicating that 'All the Nodal Deputy Commissioners(CT) are informed that if the persons who are occupying any of such post as Senior Assistant and/ on ACTO's(Language) (M & G) retire /got promotion / otherwise move out, then such posts get converted to general category post of Senior Assistant/ACTO as the case may be and ./' ) thereafter no pe soll sha1l be posted or promote d as S::rrior Assistant/A()TO(14 & G) category against these p<:sts"' Accordingly, a t)tter was communicated to Secr:tar"r to Commissioncr ICI), O/o Commissioner of CommercizLl T'l<es, A.P. HyderaLrarf rol to consider promotion of the indiviclual 'Ihe Commission,:r r ,1 Commercial Taxes, uide lette r 22-07 -2013 rejc< ted representation of petitioner dull' ser lcling r lz'ted the copy to the Ir dividual. 'lhLis respondent denied such discrimination .in promotion ol pr.:t l ioner and it is stated that when th'lre s no such post prcva.il trg after 1984 in the cadre of Senior Assis[zLnts or ACTO for Lan luages, how can a candidate be consider':rl to Promotion or-r l-aI rguage basis.

4. F{ca r I Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, iearned coltnse l for petitioner as, rvr-:[ as learned Government. Pleader lor f]erv'ces-I for Respondr:nts L and 2.

5. ILtc g,rievance of petitioner, who claims to lLave possessed I\4an,'tdee and Gujarati language qualihcatior ts, is that responde'rr t authorities ought to have promote(l h:rl as Senior Assista.nr (Language) in March 2013 itself or at leilst in April 2013 i-rasrr ttch as the said post is vacant trecause ol rLon- availability of r: I gible Junior Assistants who qualiht:d t : get 6 promotion as Senior Assistant and petitioner is the only candidate who got qualified and became eligible for such promotion as Senior Assistant (Language) in March 2013. However, the 2"d respondent Deputy Commissioner in their counter has categorically stated that the commissioner of Commercial Taxes uide Circular dated 17.OS.2013 communicated that if the persons who are occupying any of such post as Senior Assistant and / on ACTO,s (Language) (M&G) retire / got promotion / otherwise move out then such posts get converted to general category post of Senior Assistant / ACTO as the case may be and there after no person shall be posted or promoted as Senior Assistant / ACTO(M&G) category against these'pists. It is also categorically stated that there is no such discrimination in promotion of petitioner and in fact, there is no such post preva ing after 19g4 in the cadre of Senior Assistants or ACTO for Language, hence, the case of petitioner was rejected uid.e order dated, 22.OT .20 13 and the same was communicated to her also. Subsequently, petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant on O1.10.20I4 against the regular post.

6. Admittedly, Circular was issued on 17.O5.2O13 by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and there is no challenge to the said Circular tili now. In view of the same, the i. ,_ 7 Contention o1. 1.::rr ned counsel for petitioner that as lorrg as. [he A.P. Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service Rules are not amencled 1s1.I6rvir !j the post of Senior Assistant (t'anguagr:) or ACTO(Langu.lge). r hc government has no power / aut-rori'J to delete the s lid I )ost by way of passing any exe<:tltive o r<ler' cannot be cluntlnanced. This Court therefore' does not lind arry merit in the t:ase of petitioner, hence' of the opirLion that Writ Petition is; iii ble to be dismissed

7. costs.

8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismir;sec No Cons equently, Miscellaneous Applicat ions' i1 any shall stand r:losr:' l SD/- A. SRINI\/AS REDDY ASSISTANI TTEGISTRAR '' To, //TRUE COPY// \' , I ,sFclcrN oFFlcER 1. One CC to SRl. I V KRISHNAIAH Advocate'[OPUC] 2.TwoCCstoGP:oRSERV|CESl,HighCourtfortheStat()of-I.€,langana. TwoCCstcGPbrServices-ll,HighCourtfortheStateof.Ielarrllanaat Hyderabad. [OLl'-l Two CD CoPies .)

4. KKS KKS s I I {', l1: ti I /.1 a(- -.\ a k 1 .//r 1fl,lrN 2m ({\ (- 2 (,- -\ ,/.'s !!o Iro \1, \i \i HIGH COURT DATED:2ilA5li'.025 ORDER WP.No.40636 rf 2016 DISMISSING I'HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CO:STS @ot' $