High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particurarly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to and in connection with the order dated 03-04-2008 passed in o.A. No. 3437 of 2002by the rearned singre Member, A.P., Administrative -Tribunal and quash the same as being violative of Articles I4 (1), 15(1), 16(1) and 21 of the constitution of lndia besides being arbitrary, untenable and unsustainable in the eye of law and consequentially direct the respondent No.1 Board to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from '13-07-1996 the date on which the petitioner had attained the eligibility to be regularized in the Board under A.p. State and subordinate service Rules, Rota- Quota Rule. I.A. N O:1 O F 20r18(W PNIE xo:ll-993-9E29!g) PetitionunclerS'ectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthe':ircumsti'rncesstatedin the affidavit fileJ in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased considertheCaSeofthepetitionertobeplacedinthetentati\,esenioritylist treating his regtrlarization as effective from 13-07-1p96 in the respondent No l Board I.A. NO:'l OF 2014$I\ tP- lvl E=-I oi-98!-qE29l-4) Petitionulder{jectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircunrslancesstatedin the affidavit file(l in s upport of the petition, the High Court may ber pleased fix an early date for th': heirring and disposal of the W P No 8538 of 20013 in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K'RAJENDRAN dornt"f for the Respondents: SRI T'SUDHAKAR REDDY' SC FOR HMWSSB The Court madr: the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI TUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT.IUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.853 8 0F 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon'bie Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated

03.04.2008, passed in O.A.No.34Z7 of 2002by the Andhra pradesh Adminisrradve Tribuna l, Hyderabad (for short,,the Tribulal,).

2. Heard Sri K. Rajendrary learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, appearing for the respondent-Boarcl. 3 It is the case of the petitioner that initially he was appointed as Technical Work Inspector with the respondent-Board on

12.07.1991. As per B.P.No.16, dated 30.01.1992, a person who completes five years of service with the Board is entitled for next promotional post of Manager (Engineering). Therefore, respondent No.1 made an application to1flhe respondent-Board to consider his case for appointment to the post of Manager 2 AKS.J & ETD,J 'IP No 8538 of 2008 \ (Engineering) The said application was reit'rcted ztide proceeclings, <Le'ted26'03'2002' Aggrieved by tl-re sarne ' petitioner filed the:;ubjt:t:t OA' During Pendency-of the subje<t OA'' the petitioner wa; temPorarily appointed as Manager (Engineering) oide proceedirgs, dated 20 05'2003 Thereafter' the Tribunal oide impugnerl orcter, dated 03'04'2008' was pleased to ':lismiss subject C'.A., rarithout appreciating any of the contentions raised by the Petitioner'

4. Learne'l counsel for the petitioner had conlerrded that as per appr:oval of draft Service Regulations of the respondent- Board issu:d ttide G'O'Ms'No'60' datec'l 30 0l'1992' the qualification; prescribed for promotion to the pc'st of Manager (Engineerinp,), are that Diptoma in any branch of Engineering and five 1'ea.rs of service in the respondent-Board' v"hich would abunclantly make it clear that the petitioner is entitled for promotion t: the post of Manager (Engineering) on t ompletion of five years of service' The respondent-Boar:d' instead of promoting the petitioner as Manager (Errgineering) on 3 AI(S,J & ETD.J W.P.No.a53a of 2OO8 completion of five years of service, has promoted the petitioner as Manager (Engineering) on 20.05.2003, which is contrary to B.P.No.15, dared 30.01.1992. This facr -was not properly. appreciated by the Tribunal and the Tribunal had mechanically dismissed the subject o.A. Learned counser further contended that identically placed persons to that of the petitioner were promoted as Manager (Engineering) on completion of five years of service, but the petitioner was denied promotion. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ petition by setting aside the impugned order, d,ated 03.04.200g, and further, direct the respondent-Board to promote the petitioner as Manager (Engineering) from the next day on which he has completed five years of service, instead of 20.05.2003, with all consequential benefits.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Board had contended that it is no doubt true that as per the Seniee Regulations of the respondent_Board, such of those persons, who have completed five years of service with the 4 AKS,J & ETD,J w r.No.8538 of 2008 respondent-Eoard with Diploma in any branch of lingineering' are eligit,le for promotion to the post of Manager (Errgineering)' but it is orrly a minimum qualification prescribed Ncwhere' the Service Regtrlations state that one should he promoted automaticalh' on completion of f ive years of se rvice' The promotions ,tf the individuals will be subjer:t to arailability of vacancy an,l suitability. Just because the pe itioner has completecl live years of service, he cannot bc promoted automatj.call r. Further, the Tribunal dismissed thc subject O'A' with an obs,:rvation that the service rendered by tl'Le petitioner from the' yet.t's 1991' to 1995 cannot be treatecl as .re1:;ular service with the re:;pondent-Board, as admittedly, the petitioner was appointed ,rn consolidated wages.. Therefort:, the service rendered b1 the petitioner on consolidated wage:; cannot be counted to lrr: in service with the respondent-Board. Therefore, there arr: no merits in the writ Petition and the sarre is liable to be dism.Lsse<[. 5 AKS,J & ETD,J w.P. No.8538 of 20oa

6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the subject O.A., as admittedly, the petitioner has rendered service as Technical Work Inspector on consolidated wages. The service rendered on consolidated wages cannot be considered as service rendered with the respondent-Board. Further, the respondent-Board has rightly promoted the petitioner from the date on which he'was eligible and there was vacancy. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the subject O.A.

7. As far as the contention of the petitioner that identically placed persons to that of the petitioner were promoted AS Manager (Engineering) on completion of five years of service, is concerned, this point was not raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the said additional issue in the present Writ Petition. Further, nowhere it is stated whether the persons, who were promoted as Manager (Engineering) on completion of five years of service, are \ \ 6 AK:i.J & ETD,J .V ' No-8;3a of 2OO8 seniors tc the petitioner or not. If any junior to tl'rr: [retitioner is considered for promotion to the post of Manager (Engineering), then the rluestion of examining the case of the petitioner would In the absence of such an averment, this Cr.,urt cannot adjudicatr: thr case and grant notional promotion to thrl petitioner as Manager (lirgineering). On this ground also, the \A,'rit Petition is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere rvith the impugned order, dated 03.04 2008

8. Acccrdi:gly, the Writ Petition is dismissecl. ltht:re shall be no order as to r:osts. Mis,:ellaneous Applications, if any, pending irL tl-ris Writ Petition sl'rall ;tand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /^,,L SECTIODI'6FFICER one CC to SRI K.RAJENDRAN, Advocate tA|qql...... ffi;E i" Siiii'.suoun-xan iieooV, scFoR Hruwsse . Two CD CcPier; 'oPucl To 1 2 J PSK. GJP t_. : e .}1, ._,1 .c - .f, HIGH COURT DATED:271A112025 ORDER WP.No.8538 of 2008 / .t$' J'i \\- .\ '-\-..\ i 't: -9 DISMISSING I-HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT ICOSTS b 4/ l,/5 /1 2