APHC010262132019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3396]

MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

WRIT PETITION No. 11908 of 2019

Between:

K.P.Sree Devi ...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. A RAJENDRA BABU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. P SREE RAMULU NAIDU

2. B V APARNA LAKSHMI

3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RU RAL DEV (AP)

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking indulgence of this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India seeking Writ of Mandamus for the following

relief:

“to declare the action of the Respondents in

promoting Respondent No.5 as Senior Assistant in

the vacancy meant for the persons with disability of

blindness by ignoring the case of the Petitioner

informing that her case will be considered as and

when the related roster will occur vide Proceedings

in ROC No.A7/5656/ 2018, dated 05.02.2019 as

2

arbitrary, illegal, contrary to Rules and in violation

of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

and to quash or set aside the same and to issue a

consequential direction to the respondents to

consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to

the post of Senior Assistant by applying the rule of

reservation as contemplated in G.O.Ms. No.42,

dated 19.10.2011 with all attendant and

consequential benefits and to pass such other

order or orders which are deemed fit and proper in

the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned

Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Ms. B.V.

Aparna Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos., 3

and 4 and Sri P. Sree Ramulu Naidu, learned counsel for Respondent No.5.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

3. On behalf of the Petitioner

a. Petitioner is a visually challenged person, who was appointed as Typist

under backlog vacancies in Group-IV Services under Physically handicapped

quota and allotted to Zilla Parishad Department. She has been working as

such since 16.09.2002 to the satisfaction of the authorities without any remark

in her career. Due to the enactment of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995

1

,

Rule-22(2) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, were

amended by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 26.05.2011 fixing 3% reservation

1

For short „the PWD Act‟

3

in favour of disabled/ handicapped persons in the ratio of 1:1:1 i.e., for blind,

deaf/dumb and orthopedically handicapped, respectively in direct recruitment.

b. Government issued G.O.Ms.No.42, Department for Women, Children,

Disabled & Senior Citizens (DW), dated 19.10.2011 providing reservation in

promotion to the differently abled Employees in the State Government fixing

roster points at 6,31,56. Learned counsel would submit that the Petitioner

being the visually challenged, she is entitled to promotion as Senior Assistant

on roster point-6.

c. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner has submitted

a representation dated 20.01.2019 to the respondents for promotion to the

category of Senior Assistant. Respondent No.3 has issued Proceedings in

ROC No.A7/5656/2018, dated 15.02.2019 informing that her request to the

post of Senior Assistant will be considered as and when the related roster

would occur. The learned counsel contends this to be in clear violation of

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

d. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondents filled up the

post of Senior Assistant by promotion with physically handicapped person

(Respondent No.5) in roster No.6, which is meant for visually challenged

persons. Learned counsel would further submit that in the counter, respondent

No.3 has categorically mentioned that Rule of reservation in Roster No.6

reserved for blindness or low vision (open) in 2

nd

cycle, but the then Officers

by oversight issued promotion orders in favour of respondent No.5 and Senior

Assistant by mistake for the year 2013.

4

e. Learned counsel would argue that the Petitioner has passed all the

Departmental Tests even by 2006 and her probation was declared. The

promotion roster point-6 is meant for blind or low vision persons but not to the

loco motor disability. Learned counsel would further submit that the

respondent authorities have given promotion in roster No.55/55 from the

feeder category of Junior Assistants/Typists to Senior Assistant vide

Proceedings dated 15.12.2018. Finally, learned counsel prays to allow the

Writ Petition.

4. On behalf of Respondent No.3

a. Roster No.6 is meant for promotion to disabled person who are

blind/low vision in women category as per norms. The then Officer by over

sight has given promotion to orthopedically handicapped person i.e.,

Respondent No.5 in roster-6.

b. It is further submitted that roster 55/55 is meant for physically

handicapped persons in the 2

nd

cycle, promotion was given in December

2018. The Petitioner made representation 36 days after the promotion.

Learned Government Pleader refers to Memo No.57759/Ser-A/2004-1, dated

20.05.2004 which states that no request for revision of seniority more than 3

years old shall be considered. The seniority list in each category shall be

communicated, once the employee completes the prescribed probation

period.

c. Learned Government Pleader finally submits that the petitioner‟s case

will be considered when a vacancy in roster-6 again arises.

5

5. On behalf of Respondent No.5;

a. Learned counsel would submit that the promotion of respondent No.5

was given in the year 2013 in the cadre of Senior Assistant. Petitioner herein

has not challenged the promotion orders of respondent No.5. Hence, no relief

can be granted to her against the promotion of respondent No.5.

b. The probation period in the promotion post was also declared in 2014.

Petitioner has made a representation in the year 2019 and did not chose to

make any objection even after serving the seniority list. In the light of the

Circular instructions dated 20.05.2004, Petitioner cannot agitate the matter

again. Learned counsel would finally submit that the Courts are not supposed

to interfere in the matter of settled seniority.

c. Learned counsel would further submit that in the instant Writ Petition,

respondent No.5 was shown as a proforma party and no relief was claimed

against him. Petitioner has suppressed the fact of promotion of respondent

No.5 in the year 2013, whereas, in December, 2018, the roster points shown

as 55 (2

nd

cycle).

d. Learned counsel prays to dismiss the Writ Petition on the grounds of

delay and suppression of facts.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit;

a. Though the seniority is communicated to the petitioner against the

names of physically handicapped persons, the specific disability is not

mentioned. The petitioner immediately after knowing the fact that she was

ignored for promotion as per roster-6 and was not even considered in the

6

zone of promotion, whereas, respondent authorities issued promotion to the

physically handicapped persons, made a representation to respondent

authorities.

b. Learned counsel would further submit that even as per the version of

respondent No.3, within 36 days from the date of giving promotion in

December, 2018, Petitioner made a representation. When it is brought to the

notice of the authorities that the petitioner was ignored for her promotion

though she was eligible in all counts, respondent authorities have not done

anything to protect her interest, even in the year 2018, but simply issued

impugned reply.

c. Learned counsel would submit that the respondent authorities having all

the details of the Petitioner that she comes under visually challenged

category, wilfully ignored her case for promotion by violating the Rules in

G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 19.10.2011 which is not sustainable in law. Learned

counsel prays to allow the Writ Petition by directing the respondent authorities

to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of G.O.Ms.No.42, dated

19.10.2011.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

7. Having perused the material available on record, the point/s that would

arise for the consideration is;

1) Whether the action of respondent authorities in ignoring the

Petitioner for promotion in the Roster No.6 meant for the

Blind/low vision category, by giving promotion to a person

7

with a different category of disability, is in violation of

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India ?

2) If so, to what relief ?

Determination by the Court

8. The rival contentions now fall for determination before this Court.

9. The Petitioner, a visually challenged individual, approached this Court

seeking promotion to the post of Senior Assistant under roster point-6, which

is specifically designated for persons with blindness or low vision, as per

G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 19.10.2011. The Petitioner claims that despite fulfilling

all the requisite criteria and being eligible for promotion, she was not even

shown in Zone of consideration, due to a mistake on the part of Office of

Respondent No.3, where the Respondent No.5, an orthopedically

handicapped individual, was promoted under roster point-6.

10. The official Respondents though admit that the promotion was

erroneously issued by oversight, due to which an orthopaedically handicapped

person was promoted in the roster point fixed for persons with blindness or

low vision, would contend that the challenge to the promotion was made with

a delay of 36 days and the same falls foul against the Memo No.57759/Ser-

A/2004-1, dated 20.05.2004 which states that no request for revision of

seniority older than 3 years shall be considered.

11. The Respondent No.5 who is an orthopedically handicapped person

raises procedural points regarding delay and the non-challenge of his

promotion order.

8

12. Time and again, courts have consistently recognized the right to be

considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental

right, under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. It is pertinent to

refer to the following passages from Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v.

Pravat Kiran Mohant

2

which read;

“4....... There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an

employee has only right to be considered for promotion,

when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this

perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court

that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in

violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to

equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of

the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was

unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.”

(emphasis supplied)

13. A Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh v.

State of Punjab,

3

expounded that it is clear violation of fundamental rights

under Article 14 and Article 16(1) to not consider a person, even when he

satisfies the eligibility and criteria for promotion. Relevant paras 22 and 27

read as follows;

“Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for

promotion a fundamental right

22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected.

They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14

demands that the „State shall not deny to any person

equality before the law or the equal protection of the

laws‟. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that:

2

(1991) 2 SCC 295

3

(1999) 7 SCC 209

9

„there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in

matters relating to employment or appointment to any

office under the State‟.

It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1)

of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its

roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the

generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional

sense “equality of opportunity” in matters of employment

and appointment to any office under the State. The word

“employment” being wider, there is no dispute that it takes

within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above

the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16 (1)

provides to every employee otherwise eligible for

promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration,

a fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion.

Equal opportunity here means the right to be “considered”

for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone

criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will

be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be

“considered” for promotion, which is his personal right.

“Promotion” based on equal opportunity and seniority

attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental

right under Article 16(1).

***

27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok

Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.13,

and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of

Haryana14, and other cases, if it is intended to lay down

that the right guaranteed to employees for being

“considered” for promotion according to relevant rules of

recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of

seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a

fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We

have already stated earlier that the right to equal

opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a

right to be “considered” for promotion is indeed a

fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this

has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok

Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.], right

from 1950.”

(emphasis supplied)

14. To sum up, service law jurisprudence is clear to the effect that no

employee can claim promotion as a right, but there is a fundamental right to

10

be considered for promotion. Further, being in the prescribed zone of

consideration is pre-essential to claim the right to be considered for promotion

as a fundamental right.

15. It is beneficial to examine the Government Orders, on which the

Petitioner has placed reliance to substantiate his grounds seeking promotion.

16. G.O.Ms.No.23 Department for Women, Children, Disabled & Senior

Citizens (DW), dated 26.05.2011, came into force retrospectively with effect

from 28.08.2004. By virtue of this G.O. primarily 3% reservation is provided in

direct recruitment for persons with disabilities, which is divided equally among

three categories: (a) Blindness or Low Vision, (b) Hearing Impairment, and (c)

Locomotor Disability or Cerebral Palsy. However, exemptions may be granted

based on the nature of work in certain departments. It is stated that the

definitions of disabilities for the purpose of reservation are as per the Persons

with Disabilities (PWD) Act, 1995. It is further stated that the reservation

among the categories and for women, specified shall be as follows;

1 to 100

6 31 56

(Blindness or Low Vision) (Hearing Impaired) (Locomotor

Disability or Cerebral Palsy)

(Women) (Open)

(Open)

101-200

106 131 156

(Blindness or Low Vision) (Hearing Impaired) (Locomotor

Disability or Cerebral Palsy)

(Open) (Women)

(Open)

11

201-300

206 231

256

(Blindness or Low Vision) (Hearing Impaired) (Locomotor

Disability or Cerebral Palsy)

(Open) (Open)

(Women)

17. It is trite to mention that the G.O. itself stipulates that if a suitable

candidate is not available for a reserved vacancy in a recruitment year, the

vacancy is carried forward to the next year for being filled from the same

category. If no candidate is available even then, interchanging among the

three disability categories is allowed. Only if no person with a disability is

available at all, the vacancy may be filled by a non-disabled person. An

illustration for the purpose of the aforesaid carry forward is provided within the

G.O. as follows;

“Illustration 1 for Para 6 (iv):-

a) In the case of 6th roster point fixed for Blindness or

Low Vision (Woman), If woman candidate with Blindness or

Low Vision is not available in the initial recruitment year, the

vacancy may be carried forward to the succeeding recruitment

year for being filled up by woman with Blindness or Low Vision;

b) If woman candidate with Blindness or Low Vision in

that succeeding recruitment year also is not available, the same

shall be notified inviting applications from male candidate also

with Blindness or Low Vision. If male candidate with Blindness

or Low Vision is also not available, the post may first be notified

for Hearing impaired candidate (being next category in the

roster) and if no such candidate comes forward it may be

12

notified for locomotor disability or cerebral palsy (being the next

category in the roster);

c) Only when there is no person with disability of any of

the 3 categories available for the post, the employer shall fill up

the vacancy by appointment of a person other than a person

with disability.

d) For the other roster points reserved for women for

remaining two categories of disabilities i.e. roster points 131,

256 the same procedure explained at (a) to (c) above shall be

followed.”

18. Therefore, by virtue of the discussion supra, it is clear that the unfilled

vacancies of a given year, for persons with disabilities within a category, must

be carried forward to the next recruitment year to fill from among the very

same category. If no suitable candidate is found again, the vacancy can be

interchanged among the other disability categories as stated. Only if no

disabled candidate is available at all, can the vacancy be filled by a non-

disabled person.

19. On the other hand, G.O.Ms.No.42 Department for Women, Children,

Disabled & Senior Citizens (DW), dated 19.10.2011 extends the 100-point

roster system to promotions, ensuring reservation for persons with disabilities

at the 6

th

, 31

st

and 56

th

. While preparing promotion panels, eligible disabled

employees, must be placed at their designated roster points regardless of

seniority, but if a disabled employee qualifies based on seniority, they retain

their position, and a lower-ranked disabled employee moves up to fill the

reserved spot. This process continues until the required percentage of

13

disabled employees is met, after which any un-utilised roster points lapse. If

the required number of disabled employees are unavailable in the feeder

category, vacancies are carry forwarded as per orders issued in case of rule

of reservation in promotion for SC/ST persons.

20. By virtue of the above G.O., it is clear that the names of disabled

employees from feeder category have to be shown against the roster points

earmarked irrespective of their position in the seniority. If required persons are

not available, the vacancies earmarked for disabled employees according to

the roster will be carried forward.

21. Promotions as in the present case, must strictly adhere to the rules

stipulated in the G.O.s supra, which ensures that all eligible individuals within

the defined category are given equal opportunity. Promotion of an individual

from a different disability category under a point reserved for the visually

challenged is an error, as it deprives the rightful candidate of the promotion

due to them under the specific category. Upon consideration of the pleadings,

submissions made and the discussion supra, it is vivid that the promotion to

Respondent No.5 under Roster point-6, meant for visually challenged

persons, runs contrary to the reservation norms as established by

G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 26.05.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 19.10.2011.

22. The argument of learned counsel for Respondent No.5 on procedural

points regarding delay and the non-challenge of his 2013 promotion order, are

not sufficient to address the core issue i.e., the incorrect application of the

roster point. The crux of the issue lies in the violation of the rules governing

14

promotion under the reserved category. The promotion of Respondent No.5,

who is orthopedically handicapped, under roster point-6, which was meant for

the visually challenged, is in utter violation of governing provisions. At this

juncture, it is relevant to extract the following from the counter filed by

Respondent No.3, which reads thus:

“The then Officer by oversight issued promotion orders in favour

of Respondent No.5 by mistake for the year 2013.”

23. Memo No.57759/Ser-A/2004-1, dated 20.05.2004 was issued in the

context of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in B.S. Bajwa & Anr v.

State of Punjab & Ors

4

. In this case, appellants raised their grievance in

1984, despite having joined the department in 1971-72 and being consistently

treated as junior to others. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that revisiting

seniority issues is not advisable especially when over more than a decade,

seniority and promotions had already been established, and reopening the

matter after such a long delay would disrupt the settled position.

24. Taking cue from the decision rendered in B.S. Bajwa & Anr,

instructions were issued by the General Administration (SER.A) Department

vide Circ. Memo No.57759/Ser.A/2004-1, dated 20.05.2004 whereby it is

stated that no request for revision of seniority for a period which is more than

3 years old shall be considered. There cannot be any other view on the legal

proposition that Courts cannot disturb long settled seniority, but the argument

advanced by the learned counsels for the Respondents on the touchstone of

4

1998 (2) SCC 523

15

this Memo does not stand for two reasons i.e., (i) Petitioner herein has not

sought for any revision of her seniority and (ii) Administrative instructions as in

this case a Memo dated 20.05.2004, cannot derogate the fundamental right of

the Petitioner to be considered for the promotion, given the governing rules

and the clear oversight as admitted by the Respondent No.3 in the counter

itself.

25. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 advanced an argument that

no relief can be granted to the Petitioner against the promotion of the

Respondent No.5 as the promotion orders were not challenged.

26. It is a settled principle of law that justice cannot be forsaken at the

altar of technicalities and writ courts have the power to mould the relief if

required, vide Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors

5

. In Vashist

Narayan Kumar, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court found fault with the finding of

the Division Bench of the High Court which refused to quash the results

declared over the web as there was no prayer for the same, even when there

was a prayer to consider candidature by treating his date of birth as

18.12.1997 and for a direction for issuance of an appointment letter.

27. It is relevant to refer to the following passage from the decision

rendered by a Division Bench of the Hon‟ble Orissa High Court in Nilamani

Mishra v. State of Orissa & Others

6

, which reads thus;

“8. The next question is relatable to the grant of appropriate

relief to the petitioner. In this connection it has been urged by

Mr. Misra that as the petitioner has not specifically prayed for

5

2024 INSC 2

6

1990 SCC ONLINE ORI 316

16

setting aside the approval accorded to the promotion of O.P No.

4 by the Director of Secondary Education, the promotion in

favour of this opposite party cannot be set aside by this Court in

the present proceeding. Reference to the prayers as made by

the petitioner shows that the first of the same concerns the

seniority and the second to the question of recommendation of

the name of the petitioner for promotion as the Headmaster and

a direction to O.P No. 2 to approve the same. This shows that

there is no specific prayer for declaring the promotion of O.P

No. 4 as invalid in the eye of law. But then the petitioner

having prayed for any other order or direction which would

afford complete relief to him, we are of the opinion that

merely because of absence of any specific prayer for

setting aside the approval of the promotion of O.P No. 4 to

the post of Headmaster, this relief may not be denied to the

petitioner. In taking this view, we have borne in mind certain

decisions of the Apex Court which have held that Courts have

very wide discretion in the matter of framing their writs to suit

the exigencies of particular cases and an application cannot be

thrown out simply on the ground that the proper writ or direction

has not been prayed for. This was the view expressed in

Charanjitlal v. Union of India, A.I.R 1951 S.C 41. In Satyanarain

v. District Engineer, P.W.D, A.I.R 1962 S.C 1161, appropriate

relief was granted due to changed circumstances and because

of the prayer for grant of any other relief to the petitioner. In

State of Haryana v. Haryana Co-op. Transport Ltd., (1977) 1

SCC 271 : A.I.R 1977 S.C 237, the mere circumstance of the

petitioner not asking for the writ of quo warranto in so many

words was not regarded as sufficient not to entertain that

question, as facts necessary for challenging the appointment in

question had been clearly stated in the petition. It was pointed

out that the petitioner had invited the Court to issue such other

suitable writ (apart from certiorari which was specifically asked

for, but which was regarded as inappropriate) as the Court may

deem fit and proper. In B.R Ramabhadriah v. Secretary, F. & A.

Deptt., (1981) 3 SCC 528: A.I.R 1981 S.C 1653, it was

reiterated that the relief should be suitably moulded and it

should not be denied on purely technical and narrow procedural

grounds.”

(emphasis supplied)

17

28. In the instant case, the Petitioner has sought a prayer to declare the

action of promotion of Respondent No.5 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to

the rules and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in its first limb. Next,

prayer was made to quash or set aside the same. Thereafter, a prayer was

made to issue a consequential direction to consider the case of petitioner for

promotion. In such a case, taking a hyper technical view to deny a relief to

the Petitioner cannot be countenanced.

CONCLUSION

29. In the present case, Petitioner is qualified and eligible for promotion

to the post of Senior Assistant in roster No.6 as per G.O.Ms.No.42, dated

19.10.2011. It is not the case that respondent No.5 got promoted by virtue of

seniority. Respondent No.5 was promoted being ortho handicapped in the

roster point for visually challenged in clear violation of rules, which is clearly

admitted by Respondent No.3, saying it is a mistake. Yet another promotion

was given in 2018 to ortho handicapped in Roster-55. If this is permitted to

continue, it will lead to a perpetual injustice to the Petitioner.

30. The point raised on delay in the light of Circular Memo dated

20.05.2004, cannot usurp the fundamental right of the Petitioner as per the

rules. Consequently, a fair look at the impugned reply which was issued to

the Petitioner having given promotion to two orthopedically handicapped

persons in Roster-6 and 55, vide Proceedings dated 05.02.2019 is in clear

violation of Rules. Therefore, action of the Respondent authorities in ignoring

the Petitioner for promotion to Respondent No.5, with a different category of

18

disability is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the Point is answered.

RESULT

31. In that view, Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions;

i. Respondent Nos., 1 to 3 are directed to consider the case of the

Petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 19.10.2011 for promotion to

the post of Senior Assistant at her roster point-6 from the date of her

eligibility.

ii. Petitioner is entitled for all consequential and attendant benefits

notionally, from the date of her eligibility till the date of actual joining

in promotional post and monetary benefit from the date of joining in

the new post.

iii. Respondent Nos., 1 to 3 are further directed to give promotion to

respondent No.5 as Senior Assistant, as per his eligibility in the next

post i.e., in the line of seniority or in the roster point meant for

orthopedically handicapped, by giving notice to aggrieved persons, if

any.

iv. Respondent Nos., 1 to 3 are directed to take all necessary and

suitable steps immediately and complete the above exercise within a

period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

Order.

No order as to costs.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand closed.

DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Mjl/*

L.R.Copy to be marked.

19

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Writ Petition No. 11908 of 2019

30.12.2024

Mjl/*

20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

****

WRIT PETITION No. 11908 of 2019

Between:

K.P.Sree Devi,

D/o.K.Pardha Saradhy Naidu, aged about 49 years

Typist O/o.Mandal Parishad Development Officer

Mandal Parishad, SR Puram Mandal, Chittoor District.

…. Petitioner

And

1. The State of AP

rep by its Principal Secretary,

Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department

Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur Dist A.P.

2. The Commissioner

Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department,

A.P.Vijayawada

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chittoor, A.P.

4. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer

SR Puram Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P.

5. K.Raghu Nath S/o. not known, aged not known

Senior Assistant. ... Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 30.12.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Her Lordship wish to

see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

21

* THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

+ WRIT PETITION No.11908 of 2019

% 30.12.2024

Between:

K.P.Sree Devi

D/o.K.Pardha Saradhy Naidu, aged about 49 years

Typist O/o.Mandal Parishad Development Officer

Mandal Parishad, SR Puram Mandal, Chittoor District.

…. Petitioner

And

1. The State of AP

rep by its Principal Secretary,

Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department

Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravathi

Guntur Dist A.P.

2. The Commissioner

Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department,

A.P.Vijayawada

3. The Chief Executive Officer

Zilla Parishad, Chittoor, A.P.

4. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer

SR Puram Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P.

5. K.Raghu Nath S/o. not known, aged not known

Senior Assistant ... Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri A.Rajendra babu

^ Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2 : Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj

& Rural Development (AP)

Counsel for Respondents 3 & 4 : Ms.B.V.Aparna Lakshmi,

Standing Counsel

Counsel for respondent No.5 : Sri P.Sree Ramulu Naidu

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. (1991) 2 SCC 295

2. (1999) 7 SCC 209

3. 1998 (2) SCC 523

4. 2024 INSC 2

5. 1990 SCC ONLINE ORI 316

This Court made the following: