N.S. Srinivasulu v. The Principal Secretary to Government

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 particularly one in the nature of Writ CERTIORARI and to declare the orders of the Honble APAT in OA No.2091/2012 dl.4-4-2o16, the order passed by the 1st respondent in the Appeal in memo No.50125/CT-lll-212012, dated 2.3.2012 and the orders of the third respondent in CCTs Ref.No.C11485/201'1 dated 28.11.2011 as jJlegal, arbitrary, unjust, erroneous and contrary to the service rules and set-aside the same and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for notional promotion in the cadre of Special Category Stenographer w.e.f. 18.6.2008 in terms of the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.354, GAD dated 11.5.1990 and as per the Division Bench judgment of the Honble High Court in \NP No.577212002, dated 12.9.2OO3 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2Ue 0uP MP. NO: 45487 OF 20161 Petition unCer Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fi e,i ir support of the petition, the High Court may lte pleased to suspend the oper rtior of the impugned order, passed in OA. No. 209112012, daled 4-4-2016 of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and including order in reference No C11485/2011, dated 28-11-2011 and ordered in lvlemo No. 5O125|CT-lll-21201,2, r)ated 2-3-2012 of the 2nd respondent pending disposal Counsel for the Pertitioner: SRI ARVIND KUMAR KATA Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made tt,e following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH Writ Petition No.36916 of 2OL6 ORDER: eer tE Hon'bb Sn Justiu: Abhnand Kumar Stnuitl Aggrieved by the order, dated O4.O4.2OL6, passed in O.A.No.2O9 1 of 201.2 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Kata, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner was initiaily appointed as Junior Stenographer in the Commercial Taxes Department on 1 1.O5.20O 1. Thereafter, he was transferred from Chittoor Division to Hyderabad and was further p;omoted as Senior Stenographer on 17.06.2005. Irarned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that three posts of Special Category Stenographer was sanctioned and the sanctioned posts were hlled with Sri N. Chandrasekhar ( I I i I : I I l 2 \ li:,..J & SK'J sf ar69l(, 20l a) a) Rao, Sri V.'venkateswara Rao and Sri 'l' Slinivas' Subsequen t1],, ore of the Speciai category Stenographer member opi,:d for conversion to the pr.'st of Superintende:t, thus one post of Special C;ltegory Stenograplrer feLl vacant. Hence, the petitior-ri:r has submitted hts representation on 18'06'2008 requesling the responden -s 1o consider his case for promotion to tne post of Specizrl Ctrlegory Stenographer, as admittedll' he has completecl three years of service as Senior Stenographer' but the ca;c ll the petitioner was considered and tLLe same was reje:teC uide proceedings, da[ed 28'11'2012' Challengirg the rejection order, dated 28'112012' the petitioner ha-r; preferred an appeal before the a cpellate authoritv rrnrl the appeal was dismiss ed on O2'O3'2r)12'

4. Aggr era:C by the said rejection order, dated 28.71.2072 and appellate order, dated 02'03''2OL2, the petitioner h,es approached the Tribunal 111' fiiing O.A.No.!)C9 7 of 2Ol2 and the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss tre said O.A., without appreciating anv of the contentiot rs :'aised by the petitioner uide ordel ' dated

04.o4.2016 I t a\ .\ 3 AKS,J & SK,J wp 36916 2016

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that when there were three (3) vacant posts of Special Category Stenographer, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for promotion as Special Category Stenographer. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Special Category Stenographer notionally i.e., from the date on which he has compieted three years of service as Senior Stenographer'

6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that out of three Special Category Stenographer posts, one post was upgraded to that of Private Secretary- to Commissioner (CT) uide G.O.Ms.No.456, dated, O2.12.2OO8 and remaining two posts were fil1ed up by the said Sri V' Venkateswara Rao and Sri J. Srinivas, who are admittedly, seniors to the petitioner and none of the juniors to the petitioner were promoted earlier to him in the category of Special Category Stenographer. Therefore, the question of promoting the petitioner notionally would not arise' Hence, the Tribunal ,, I t 0 It \ 4 .1 (S.,I & SK,.J 2016 "r,,36916 was just-iJied in dismissing the O.A. Therefore. thele are no merits in tL e Writ Petition and the same 1s iia-ble to be dismisseil.

7. This C:urt, having considered the rival su'D:nissions made by bot.h the parties, is of the view that though there were th ree (3) vacant posts of Special '.lategoly Stenograrrht,r' during the year 2008, two (2) po';ts were fi11ed up rv th the aforementioned individuals, uvho are senl0rs t > ti.le petitioner. Since there was no vac ancy for the post of Sipecial Category Stenographer. the 1'etitioner cannot c on,-end that his case has to be consiiered for promotio -r rls Special Category Stenographer- notionally Admitted ty, none of the juniorS to the petitiorter were promotec e:u'1ier to him as Special Category Stenographer. When tl re :urn of the petitioner had c cme up for promotioe, lis case was considered and he tt'as p,romoted as Senior Sle nographer on 17.06.2005. Hence th,: Tribunal was justifierl in dismissing the O.A. Therelore. this Court is not incli rerl to interfere wittl the or-ders passer I by the Tribunal 5 AKS,J & SK,J E?_36916_20 l6

8. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL ASSIS ANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, l One CC to SRI ARVIND KUMAR KATA' Advocate.[OPUC] i. ii'i" dd.i"-ci FoR sriiVice's i, High court for the state of relansana 3. Two CD CoPies touTl BN GJP I I ,i i I I I I n c HIGH COUFIT DATED:21 l(t112025 ORDER WP.No.36916 of 2016 1t .E :ii AI € aA ( q o 0 i: i.P { 2[25 t ,;o c'a ( .I' l ! i DISMISSING ThIE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS / 4z ft 1 /0