HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

WRIT PETITION (AT) NO.225 OF 2021

Between:

P.Amarnath

… Petitioner(s)

Versus

The General Superintendent, PW Workshop Division,

Sithanagaram, Tadepalli and others

...Respondents

* * * * *

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 10.09.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgment/Order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Order may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

fair copy of the Judgment/Order? Yes/No

JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

2

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

+ WRIT PETITION (AT) NO.225 OF 2021

% 10.09.2026

# Between:

P.Amarnath

… Petitioner(s)

Versus

The General Superintendent, PW Workshop Division,

Sithanagaram, Tadepalli and Others

...Respondents

!

Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : Sri Deva Kumar Salikiti

^

Counsel for the Respondents

:

1. Government Pleader for

Services II.

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 449.

2. 2003 (5) ALD 697 (DB).

3. Bihar State Electricity Board and others v. Dharamdeo Das in

Civil Appeal No.6977 of 2015, dated 23.07.2024 on the file of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court : 2024 INSC 549.

This Court made the following:

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

3

Date on which Order/Judgment was

reserved :

15.07.2026

Date on which Order/Judgment was

pronounced :

10.09.2026

Date on which Order/Judgment was

uploaded on the website of the High

Court

: 10.09.2026

APHC010226992021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3327]

THURSDAY, THE 10

th

DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 225/2021

Between:

P.AMARNATH, A

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT, P.W WORKSHOP

DIVISION, SITHANAGARAM, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR

DISTRICT.

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE,

GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

3. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF AM, WATER RESOURCES

DEPARTMENT, ERRUMMANZIL, A.P. HYDERABAD.

4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES

DEPARTMENT, AND HRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT,

HYDERABAD.

...RESPONDENT(S):

to declare the action of the Respondents 2, 3 and 4 for not

granting promotion to the post of Superintendent from March, 2014 in

spite of availability of clear vacancy at PW Workshop, Sithanagaram

is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the

Constitution of India and consequently declare that the applicant is

entitled for promotion as Superintendent with effect from March, 2014

in the clear existing vacancy with all attendant benefits

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

4

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the

High Court may be pleased to restore the W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

on the file of this Court for adjudication of the matter afresh by setting

aside the orders passed in W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021 dt.7.12.2022 in

the interest of justice and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the

High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 89 days in filing

the petition for setting aside the orders passed in W.P.(AT)

No.225/2021 on 7.12.2021 in the interest of justice and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the

High Court may be pleased to grant leave to these respondents in

W.P(AT).No.225 of 2021 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ

Petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. DEVAKUMAR SALIKITI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

The Court made the following:

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

WRIT PETITION (AT) NO.225 OF 2021

O R D E R

Originally, the petitioner herein filed O.A.No.2827 of 2016

before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal under Section 19

of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Since the Andhra Pradesh

Administrative Tribunal was abolished in the year 2020, the aforesaid

application pending therein, was transferred to this Court, and the

same was renumbered as Writ Petition (AT) No.225 of 2021 and

taken up by this Court for adjudication.

2. This Writ Petition (AT) is filed seeking the following relief:

“….to declare the action of the respondent Nos.2, 3

and 4 for not granting promotion to the post of the

Superintendent from March, 2014 in spite of availability of

clear vacancy at PW Workshop, Sithanagaram, as illegal,

arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the

Constitution of India, and consequently, declare that the

applicant is entitled for promotion as Superintendent with

effect from March, 2014 in the clear existing vacancy with all

attendant benefits, and to pass such other order or orders …”

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was initially

appointed as Junior Assistant on 24.06.1993 in Priyadarshini Jurala

Project, Gadwal of Mahabubnagar District, thereafter transferred to

the Office of 1

st

respondent on 01.01.1995; that on 10.02.2009, the

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

6

petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant; that before

bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the PW Workshop,

Sithanagaram and the RW & M Division, Kadapa continued under the

control of the Superintending Engineer, M&W Circle, Red Hills,

Hyderabad, and for the purpose of seniority and promotion, these two

Units were treated differently, based on their respective seniority.

(b) Due to the demise of one R.Subba Rao, Superintendent,

the said post was kept vacant from 06.03.2014, and the petitioner,

being senior-most in the Unit of Sithanagaram, was placed as Full

Additional Charge to the said post vide Order dated 07.03.2014 of R1;

that the petitioner, for regular promotion, made a representation to 1

st

respondent on 19.04.2014 before bifurcation of the State of Andhra

Pradesh, and the same was forwarded to the Superintendent

Engineer, M&W Circle, Red Hills, Hyderabad, pursuant to which, on

18.06.2014, the Government issued a Memo, ordering that the

General Superintendent, PW Workshop Division, Sithanagaram and

RW & M Division, Kadapa were attached to the Irrigation Circle,

Guntur, until further orders, and from then, the above two Divisions

are being continued under 2

nd

respondent.

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

7

(c) On 01.08.2014, the petitioner made another

representation for his regular promotion, and the same was forwarded

to 2

nd

respondent on 02.08.2014, enclosing the tentative seniority list

of Sithanagaram, PW Workshop; that on 08.09.2014, 2

nd

respondent

addressed a letter to 3

rd

respondent for issuing necessary orders

regarding service matters and promotions for maintaining separate

seniority lists, which are being continued prior to attachment to the

Circle; that on 10.03.2015, 3

rd

respondent addressed a letter to 4

th

respondent for issuing necessary instructions in this regard, for

maintaining lien and seniority of Circle Scale Establishment after

passing orders on adjusting the above two Divisions.

(d) On 21.10.2014, again 1

st

respondent addressed a letter

to 3

rd

respondent for taking action on the issue of promotion of the

petitioner based on the Division-Wise Seniority List; that on

30.06.2015, 2

nd

respondent addressed a letter to the earlier

Superintending Engineer, M&W Circle for providing seniority list

earlier maintained in Circle for Sithanagaram and Kadapa Divisions;

that thereafter, the petitioner personally went to the office of the

earlier Superintending Engineer, and handed over the seniority list to

2

nd

respondent; that on 15.09.2015, 2

nd

respondent addressed a letter

to 3

rd

respondent enclosing separate seniority list for PW Workshop,

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

8

Sithanagaram and Kadapa, before bifurcation of the State of Andhra

Pradesh, and submitted the list to 3

rd

respondent for taking action as

per G.O.Rt.No.2759, G.A. Department, dated 01.08.2014,

whereunder ban that was imposed for effecting promotions, was lifted

in respect of Zonal Level Posts.

(e) On 06.04.2016, 3

rd

respondent informed 2

nd

respondent

about allocation of Posts between the Andhra Pradesh State and the

Telangana State, and directed 2

nd

respondent to maintain Cade

Strength and Seniority, and accordingly, enclosed the particulars of

the posts continued at Sithanagaram, which includes Superintendent;

that in spite of the above correspondence, and lifting ban on

promotions, 2

nd

respondent has not proceeded with promotions for the

last more than two years, and the petitioner could not get promotion

as Superintendent in spite of his seniority and availability of clear

vacancy; that in respect of zonal posts, there is no question of

allocation of the posts, and there is no issue pending in respect of

allocation and even as per the orders of the Superintending Engineer,

all the issues, in respect of allocation, have been settled, and the

Seniority Lists of Division-wise of Sithanagaram and Kadapa were

obtained from earlier Circle, and placed before the Engineer-in-Chief

and thereafter, 3

rd

respondent directed promotions as per the

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

9

Government Orders lifting ban, but in spite of all this, the case of

petitioner was not considered as on the date.

(f) There is a clear existing vacancy of Superintendent at

Sithanagaram Division, and in the said post many persons were

promoted and retired, and the last person passed away in the month

of March, 2014, and since there is a clear vacancy at PW Workshop

Division, Sithanagaram, in view of lifting ban on promotions, the same

has to be filled, and thereby, the petitioner, being the senior most,

entitled for the said post. Hence, the Writ Petition (AT).

4. Counter-affidavit was filed by respondent No.2, and also

on behalf of other respondents, denying the contents of the Writ

Petition (AT), inter alia contending that the Government issued Orders

in para No.7(A) of G.O.Rt.No.2147, G.A.(DPC-1) Dept., dated

16.05.2014 that a general ban on all promotions in the State at all

levels is imposed, till the process of allocation of employees to the

successor State of Telangana and the Andhra Pradesh are

completed; that vide G.O.Rt.No.566, G.A.(DPC) Dept., dated

10.03.2016, the Government issued orders relaxing the ban imposed

on promotions, appointments, transfers etc. to the Departments,

where final allocation of employees of State/Multi Zonal Cadres have

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

10

been completed by the Government of India; that clarification orders

regarding the cadre strength of Circle Scale employees of P.W.

Workshops Division, Sithanagaram was received from the Engineer-

in-Chief (Admn. Wing) vide Memo No.RC/ENC/I(2)/ 14081430/2014,

dated 06.06.2016. In view of the circumstances, the delay caused in

considering the representation of the petitioner for promotion to the

post of the Superintendent is only administrative delay due to State

bifurcation, and for want of clarification orders from the higher

authorities regarding service matters, cadre strength etc. in respect of

P.W. Workshops Division, Sithanagaram, as it was attached to the

Irrigation Circle, Guntur, temporarily, until further orders. In respect of

the facts of the present case, to settle the grievance of Notional

Promotion from the date of arising vacancy, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that it is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective

from the date it is granted, but not from the date when a vacancy

occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. Hence, it

is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition (AT).

5. Earlier, this Court, vide Order dated 07.12.2022, passed

the following Order:

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

11

Since long time, nobody represented nor appeared

on behalf of the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner is not

interested in prosecuting the case.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed in default and

for non-prosecution as well. There shall be no order as to costs.

6. Subsequently, petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 seeking to

set-aside the Order passed in W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

dt.07.12.2022, and to restore the same for adjudication of the matter,

afresh. This Court vide Order dated 28.11.2024 passed the following

Order in I.A.No.1 of 2023:

This application is filed seeking restoration of the petition,

which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 07.12.2022.

By taking into consideration all the averments made in the

counter-affidavit, which shows that, the petitioner was promoted

to the post of Superintendent of the existing vacancy in P.W.

Workshop Division, Sithanagaram, vide proceedings No.SE/

NTPA/EC-4/992 M, dated 08.08.2016, issued by 2

nd

respondent

herein, this application is allowed subject to payment of costs of

20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) in favour of the High

Court Clerk’s Association, Amaravati, within a period of two (02)

weeks from today.

If the costs are not paid within the time stipulated, this

application stands dismissed.

Pursuant to compliance of the conditional order, dated

28.11.2024 by the petitioner, the dismissal order dated 07.12.2022

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

12

was set-aside, and the Writ Petition (AT) No.225 of 2021 was restored

to file for adjudication, afresh.

7. Sri Deva Kumar Salikiti, learned counsel for the petitioner

would contend that a clear vacancy arose of the post of the

Superintendent in the month of March, 2014 on account of demise of

one R.Subba Rao on 06.03.2014, and the petitioner, being the senior-

most employee in the relevant Unit, and was fully qualified and

eligible for promotion, he was placed full additional charge of the said

post vide Proceedings No.EC-1/E-4/2013-2014/199S, dated

07.03.2014, and that itself goes to show that the respondents

considered the petitioner that he is suitable to discharge such duties,

therefore, there is no question of lack of eligibility or qualification on

the part of petitioner, and the petitioner continuously made his

representations to consider his eligibility and though much

correspondence was made, his representation was not considered.

He further contends that the petitioner was eventually promoted

against the very vacancy in P.W.Workshop Division, Sithanagaram

vide Proceedings No.SE/NTPA/AB/EC-4/992M, dated 08.08.2016,

and the State bifurcation and consequential changes caused delay,

and for the said reason, the petitioner could not be put to suffer, and

as such, the petitioner has legitimate right to seek notional promotion

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

13

from the date on which he was placed full additional charge to the

post of the Superintendent, followed by consequential seniority and

monetary benefits.

8. Ms. C.Indrani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Services-II would contend that merely because a vacancy arose in the

month of March, 2014, does not entitle the petitioner that he acquired

legitimate right for promotion from that the date on which he was

placed full additional charge. The petitioner, being the senior-most

employee in the cadre of Senior Assistant, was placed full additional

charge to the post of the Superintendent, but it does not entitle him to

claim the consequential benefits retrospectively, when the date of his

promotion was with effect from 08.08.2016. She further contends that

the circumstances following the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh were

exceptional, and affected number of employees and their cadres, and

when such is the situation, the petitioner cannot seek benefit for a

period when the State itself was undergoing a statutory

reorganization, and it is due to State bifurcation, there occurred

administrative delay and other complications in regard to cadre

strength, seniority-wise list and other aspects, for which, the

respondents cannot be blamed that they acted arbitrarily and

erroneously. Even due to G.O.Rt.No.2147, G.A.(DPC-I) Department,

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

14

dated 16.05.2014, general ban was prevailing and even assuming

that the vacancy arose on 06.03.2014, the petitioner is not entitled to

claim the promotional benefits with retrospective effect, when the

Government imposed restrictions on promotion during such period.

She further contends that the petitioner is not entitled for a blanket

order granting promotional relief retrospectively, which involves legal

rights of other employees.

9. Heard Sri Deva Kumar Salikiti, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Ms. C.Indrani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Services-II and the learned Government Pleader for Services-III

representing the respondents. Perused the entire material available

on record.

10. Now the point that arise for consideration is, whether the

petitioner, who was promoted as Superintendent on 08.08.2016, is

entitled to claim the retrospective promotion from the date on which

he was placed full additional charge to the said post with effect from

07.03.2014, and if so, whether the petitioner is entitled to

consequential monetary benefits?

11. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that due

to sudden demise of one R.Subba Rao, Superintendent on

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

15

06.03.2014, vide Proceeding No.EC-1/E-4/2013-2014/199s, dated

07.03.2014 of 1

st

respondent, the petitioner, being a Senior Assistant

and being senior-most employee, was placed full additional charge to

the post of the Superintendent of P.W. Workshop Division,

Sithanagaram with effect from 07.03.2014. Later, the petitioner made

representations to 1

st

respondent on 19.04.2014 and 01.08.2014

seeking for regular promotion and while the same were forwarded to

the respondent authority concerned, the Government of Andhra

Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.2147, General Administration (DPC-I)

Department, dated 16.05.2014, which is extracted hereunder:

“ORDER:

In Cir. Memo first and fifth rad above, orders have been

issued, in respect of all Government Departments, that DPC will be

held in cases:

a. where there is a court direction to hold such DPC,

or

b. where any employee, who is likely to get promoted

and is superannuating before 30.06.2014.

2. The above order was issued with a view to give effect to

the provisions of Section 77 of A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, which

provides for provisional and final allotment of employees among the

successor States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

3. The “appointed day”, as defined in Section 2 (a) in A.P.

Reorganization Act, 2014, in relation to Section 77 (1) of the Act, is the

day immediately before which every person serving on substantive

basis in connection with the affairs of existing State of Andhra Pradesh

shall, on and from that day, provisionally continues to serve in

connection with the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradesh unless he is

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

16

required, by general or specific order of the Central Government to

serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of

Telangana.

4. “Appointed day” has been fixed as 02.06.2014, and

Central/State Government have taken several actions to ensure that

the provisions of A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 is implemented and

accordingly constituted various Committees on the issues relating to

allocation of employees; distribution of asserts etc and to speed up

process of Reorganization of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh.

Further, several guidelines have been issued from time to time with

regard to management of files; digitization of files and action plan etc.,

vide references 3

rd

; 4

th

and 6

th

to 16

th

read above.

5. There have been several requests coming up before the

Government for promoting certain employees to higher cadre, before

the “appointed day”. There had also been certain representations from

Associations of employees to put a freeze to all the promotions and

that the matter be left to the successor State Governments to deal with

promotions of their employees after the “appointed day”.

6. Government has also taken note of the guidelines, when

the States of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar were

bifurcated in the year 2000, according to which:

i. all recruitments against vacancies in the interim

i.e., till issue of final allocation orders may be kept

in abeyance;

ii. wherever panels have been drawn but not

published, they may be kept in abeyance till

reorganization of State is given effect to;

iii. wherever panels have been recently published,

selected candidates will be notified that their

services in the existing State of Bihar/MP/UP may

not be required beyond the “appointed day” and

that they are liable to serve in the successor State

of Jharkhand/Chattisgarh/Uttaranchal after

reorganization, as the case may be.

7. Government has considered the entire issue in totality,

and hereby orders as follows:

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

17

a. A general ban on all promotions in the State at

all levels is imposed, till the process of allocation of

employees to the successor States of Telangana

and Andhra Pradesh are completed.

b. A ban is also imposed on all (a) appointments;

(b) transfers; (c) revision of seniority and

(d) change in terms and conditions of employment.

8. However, the above restrictions can be waived for good

and sufficient reasons, only when there are compelling public interests

which warrant such waiver.

9. All the Departments of Secretariat/Heads of

Departments/District Collectors shall take necessary action

accordingly.”

A plain reading of the above G.O. goes to show that as

there had been several requests came before the Government for

promoting certain employees to higher cadre, before the “appointed

day”, and also there had been certain representations from the

Associations of employees to put a freeze to all the promotions and

that the matter be left to the successor State Governments to deal

with promotions of their employees, the Government of Andhra

Pradesh, with a view to give effect to the provisions of Section 77 of

the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, imposed a general ban on all

promotions in the State at all levels, till the process of allocation of

employees to the successor States of Telangana and Andhra

Pradesh are completed, and a ban is also imposed on all

appointments, transfers, revision of seniority, and change in terms

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

18

and conditions of employment. However, it was made clear that the

above restrictions can be waived for good and sufficient reasons, only

when there are compelling public interests which warrant such waiver.

12. Indisputably, the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide

G.O.RT.No.566, General Administration (DPC) Department, dated

10.03.2016, after careful examination of the matter, relaxed the ban

imposed in G.O.Rt.no.2147, General Administration (DPC.I)

Department, dated 16.05.2014, on promotions, appointments

(including compassionate appointments), transfers, revision of

seniority and change in terms and conditions of employment to the

Departments where final allocation of employees of State/Multi Zonal

cadres have been completed by the Government of India subject to

the general ban on transfers and other general restrictions that are in

operation. Later, vide Proceedings No.SE/NTPA/AB/EC-4/992m,

dated 08.08.2016, the petitioner was promoted to the post of

Superintendent and posted to P.W. Workshops Division,

Sithanagaram in the existing vacancy.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion to the

post of Superintendent, even though there is an existing vacancy,

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

19

infringes his right under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. He

placed strong reliance on a decision rendered by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Dr. Sandhya Jain (MRS) v. Dr. Subhash Garg ad

another

1

, wherein it was observed as under: (paragraph Nos.7 and 8)

“7. … It has not been indicated in Schedule IV as to how

the fifth post of Reader which is provided for in Schedule I would

be filled up. In the absence of any provision in the Recruitment

Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution,

indicating as to how the fifth post of Reader would be filled up, the

decision of the Government in this regard assumes significance

inasmuch as the Government can issue executive instructions for

the purpose, which is not contrary to the statutory rules…

8. … there is no repugnancy and that being the position

and in view of our conclusion that the fifth post of Reader could be

filled up by a Lecturer of any discipline and in fact was being filled

up by the State Government, we see no illegality in the impugned

direction of the Tribunal, calling upon the State to consider the

case of Dr. Garg when a vacancy was available and he had

become eligible for being considered. It has been brought to our

notice that said Dr. Garg has in the meantime being promoted as

Reader but still his right to be considered at an earlier point of time

when he was not considered erroneously, cannot be said to have

been wiped off by the subsequent promotion. In the aforesaid

premises, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal rightly

issued the impugned directions. We see no error in the same, so

as to be interfered with by this Court.”

1

(1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 449.

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

20

14. Learned counsel for petitioner also placed reliance in a

judgment rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in

State of A.P. and another v. C.Srinivasulu Reddy

2

, wherein it was

held as under: (paragraph No.7)

“7. … But as we pointed out earlier that the Government

has passed a G.O. being G.O.Ms.No.354, dated 11.05.1990 itself

stating therein that where a person’s claim for promotion was not

considered at the appropriate time, he would be entitled to notional

promotion. Therefore, in our view, the Tribunal was not wrong in

coming to the conclusion that the benefit of notional promotion in

terms of the G.O.Ms.No.354, dated 11.05.1990 could not be

denied to the respondent on the ground that no junior to him had

been promoted. Whether a junior was promoted or not is not a

consideration at all in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.354, dated

11.05.1990. The only consideration under this G.O. is that whether

a person was not considered at the time he should have been

considered for any reason whatsoever

15. This Court perused the aforesaid decisions relied upon

by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and with due respect, this

Court is of the opinion that the facts of the cases in Dr. Sandhya

Jain

1

and C.Srinivasulu Reddy

2

are not applicable to the facts of the

present case. In the aforesaid decisions, the point that involves is

entitlement to consideration at the relevant point of time arose in the

context of the applicable rules and executive instructions, including

2

2003 (5) ALD 697 (DB).

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

21

the specific Government Order providing for notional promotion where

an employee’s claim had not been considered at the appropriate time,

and the said decisions cannot be construed as laying down an

absolute proposition that an employee is entitled to retrospective

promotion merely because a vacancy existed and he was otherwise

eligible for consideration.

16. In the case on hand, it is due to bifurcation of the

erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, the respondents were required to

undertake the exercise relating to allocation of employees, cadre

strength, maintenance of seniority-list and the administrative control of

the concerned Divisions. Indeed, there was a general ban on

promotions imposed by the Government, and subsequently, it was

relaxed subject to conditions. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was

later promoted as Superintendent and posted to P.W. Workshops

Division, Sithanagaram in the vacant post. Though he contends that

the said vacancy arisen in the month of March, 2014, and he was the

senior-most eligible employee, mere availability of a vacancy does not

confer an automatic right of promotion from the date on which such

vacancy arose. In fact, the petitioner was placed full additional charge

of the post of the Superintendent with effect from 07.03.2014 due to

administrative convenience and he was promoted to the post of the

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

22

Superintendent with effect from 08.08.2016. Therefore, mere placing

full additional charge to the post of the Superintendent, which is a

higher-post, does not confer any legal right to claim such promotion

retrospectively i.e. from 07.03.2014 from which date he was placed

full additional charge to the post of the Superintendent.

17. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II

would contend that though there is an existing vacancy by

07.03.2014, the plea of petitioner to entitle fix his date of promotion to

the post of Superintendent on 07.03.2014 instead of 08.08.2016, is

not tenable, as there was a general ban on all promotions in view of

State bifurcation, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh

Reorganization Act, 2014. She placed strong reliance on the

proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bihar State

Electricity Board and others v. Dharamdeo Das

3

, wherein it was

held as under: (paragraph Nos.28 to 30)

“28. We do not find any error in the stand taken by the appellant-

Board in terms of its Resolution dated 9

th

June, 2005, whereby the

respondent’s plea for shifting his date of promotion to the post of Joint

Secretary from 5

th

March, 2003 to 29

th

July, 1997 was rejected for the

reason that there was no vacant post of Joint Secretary during the period

between 29

th

July, 1997 to 5

th

March, 2003 on account of the fact that

after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar into the present State

of Bihar and Jharkhand, vide Resolution dated 6/8

th

December, 2003 the

3

Civil Appeal No.6977 of 2015, dated 23.07.2024 : 2024 INSC 549.

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

23

appellant-Board had taken a calibrated decision to slash the number of

sanctioned posts of Joint Secretary from six to three at the headquarters

at Patna. The subsequently issued Office Order dated 24

th

December,

2003 gave effect to such an intention and declared that from out of the

reduced posts of Joint Secretary, one would be manned by an Officer of

suitable rank from the Bihar Administrative Service, one from the

Ministerial Officer of the Board Secretariat Cadre and the third from the

Engineering Cadre.

29. In the instant case, records reveal that there was no vacancy

to the post of Under Secretary in the appellant-Board on the said post

being reduced from six to three. This step was taken by the Board due to

administrative exigencies. We do not find any infirmity in the said

decision. Even otherwise, assuming that there was a vacancy to the

subject posts, it would not have automatically created a valuable right in

favour of the respondent for claiming retrospective promotion to the next

higher post. It is only when an actual vacancy arose that the respondent

was granted the benefit of accelerated promotion and that too on going

through the prescribed process.

30. Given the above legal position, in our view, the Division

Bench of the High Court ought to have refrained from interfering with the

findings returned by the learned Single Judge who has rightly held that

merely because the respondent had completed the Kal Awadhi for

promotion from the post of Under Secretary to Joint Secretary, would not

necessarily entitle him for appointment from the date the post fell vacant.

This is not a case where the respondent has been deprived of promotion

to the next higher post, nor is it a case where the action of the Board was

guided by any malafides or colourable exercise of power. As noted

above, the action of the Board was purely guided by administrative

exigencies. The Resolution of the Board dated 26

th

December, 1991 for

fixing the Kal Awadhi was only directory in nature and cannot be treated

as statutory for the respondent to have claimed an entitlement to

promotion reckoned from 29

th

July, 1997, instead of 5

th

March, 2003.

Such a view is in consonance with the settled legal position and cannot

be faulted.”

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

24

A plain reading of the aforesaid decision goes to show that

mere occurrence of vacancy in the promotional post does not, by

itself, entitle an employee to claim promotion from the date on which

the vacancy arose, for the reason that, promotion ordinarily takes

effect from the date on which it is actually granted, unless the

governing rules or a specific statutory or executive provision expressly

provides for retrospective or notional promotion. Undoubtedly, the

petitioner was placed full additional charge to the post of the

Superintendent from 07.03.2014, and his representations to promote

him to the vacant post of the Superintendent by considering his

seniority was not taken up by the respondent authorities due to State

bifurcation issues and also imposition of ban. However, in the

G.O.Rt.No.2147, General Administration (DPC-I) Department, dated

16.05.2014 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, it was

mentioned that the restrictions i.e. with regard to general ban imposed

on all promotions in the State at all levels till the process of allocation

of employees to the successor States of Telangana and Andhra

Pradesh are completed and a ban, imposed on all appointments,

transfers, revision of seniority and change in terms and conditions of

employment, can be waived for good and sufficient reasons, only

when there are compelling public interests which warrant such waiver.

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

25

Even after the representations made by the petitioner, the respondent

authorities did not consider the same by promoting to the post of

Superintendent, and it can be inferred that they did not find any good

and sufficient reason compelling public interests warranting them to

waive the restriction.

18. The petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim

retrospective or notional promotion from March, 2014 solely on the

ground that the vacancy had arisen on that date. In the absence of

any statutory provision or specific Government Order requiring

retrospective fixation of the date of promotion in the circumstances of

the present case, the claim for consequential monetary and service

benefits from March, 2014 is also unsustainable.

19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the

considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought in

the Writ Petition (AT). The petitioner has already been promoted to

the post of the Superintendent, after lifting of ban. His further claim for

antedating the promotion to March, 2014 and for consequential

benefits from that date cannot be granted.

SRK, J

W.P.(AT) No.225 of 2021

26

20. Accordingly, the Writ Petition (AT) No.225 of 2021 is

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition

(AT).

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any,

pending in this Writ Petition (AT), shall stand closed.

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

10

th

September, 2026.

DNB

Note:

LR Copy to be marked.

B/o.

DNB