THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 13687 of 2010. ORDER: (Per GR,J) The order of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal dt. 26.2.2010 rejecting O.A.No. 11489 of 2009 along with M.A.No. 4395 of 2009 is assailed in this writ petition. The petitioners, who belong to Scheduled Tribe, are working as School Assistants in Government Schools. They are aspirants to the promotional post of Head Master. Initially, for promotion to the post of Head Master, a minimum period of five years of service in the feeder category was prescribed. In G.O.Ms.No. 627 General (Administration) Department dt. 21.12.1993, an ad hoc rule was issued reducing the period to three years but stipulated further that in no case shall it be less than two years in the category, class or grade from which such promotion or transfer is made. On representation of unqualified persons who were not possessing the minimum experience required for promotion to higher posts, the State initially issued a Memo dt. 9.1.2001 clarifying that persons appointed or promoted on ad hoc or temporary basis without fulfilling the required number of years of service in the feeder category, by invoking Rule 10(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules may be allowed to count service in higher category or class as the case may be to the extent of the period of duty performed in latter service during which he would have held the post in the former service but for such appointment in the latter service and the probation of such individual so promoted or appointed may have to be commenced from the next date of such completion of the required period of service in the former service i.e. in the lower feeder category. Communicating a copy of the memo dt. 9.1.2001 to the Director of School Education, Hyderabad, the State Government requested that action be taken to consider promotions in respect of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on ad hoc or temporary basis without fulfilling the required number of years of service in the feeder category, by invoking rule 10(a), by Memo dt. 28.01.2009. In fact the memo dt. 28.01.2009 proceeds on the assumption that it is in continuation of the earlier memo dt. 9.1.200. The reference to the Memo dt. 9.1.2001 in the Memo dt. 28.01.2009 appears to be a non-sequitur. The Memo dt. 9.1.2001 was issued by the State on noticing that in certain cases persons considered for appointment by transfer, involving promotion on temporary basis were being allowed to commence their probation from the date of temporary promotion made under Rule 10 (a) even though they were not qualified for such promotion, owing to the exigencies by relaxing special rules on account of failure to acquire minimum eligibility of three years of service. Be that as it may. On its fair terms, the Memo dt. 28.1.2009 directed the Director of School Education to consider promotion of Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes on ad hoc or temporary basis even though they do not fulfil the required service in the feeder category. The petitioners, aggrieved by non-consideration of their cases for promotion as Head Masters, filed O.A.No. 11489 of 2009 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal for a declaration that they are entitled to be appointed to the post of Gazetted Head Master Grade-II with effect from 12.1.2009, the date on which promotion orders were issued to other candidates (candidates who were qualified and had the requisite experience, but belonging to non- reserved communities). In the O.A. the learned Tribunal granted interim direction that the cases of the applicants before it (the writ petitioners) be considered for appointment/promotion as Gazetted Head Masters Grade- II, in terms of the Government Memo dt. 28.1.2009. Consequent on the interim direction as above, the State Government considered the cases of the petitioners and by the Memo dt. 21.11.2009 rejected their plea for appointment/promotion as Gazetted Head Masters Grade- II on the ground that there was no current exigency in the department requiring filling up of any vacant post by invoking Rule 10(a). This memo was issued by the State pending determination of O.A.No. 11489 of 2009. In the circumstances, the petitioners, by way of M.A. No. 4395 of 2009 assailed the validity of the Government Memo dt. 21.11.2009. The learned Tribunal thus had an occasion to consider for adjudication O.A.No. 11489 of 2009 along with M.A.No. 4395 of 2009 and by the impugned order rejected the relief sought by the petitioners in the main O.A.No. 11489 of 2009 as well as in M.A.No. 2370 of 2009. It requires to be noticed that in the Memo dt. 21.11.2009, the Government has clearly recorded that Rule 10 (a) could be invoked in public interest to fill up emergently a vacancy in an exigency and not generally. The Memo further recorded that the promotion rules require and ordain that the persons must put in minimum service of three years in the feeder category to be eligible for promotion to the next level; that the purpose of providing minimum service period in the feeder category is to ensure that the persons under consideration acquire certain minimum level of experience so as to perform the duties efficiently in the promoted post; that promoting persons without the required experience in the feeder category will have adverse impact on the performance of the individual in the higher rank; that promoting persons without requisite experience in the feeder category could be considered under Rule 10(a) in the exigency of administration but no such exigency is discernible and hence invocation of Rule 10(a) to appoint the petitioners as Gazetted Head Masters Grade-II was not warranted. The decision of the State Government as reflected in Memo dt. 21.11.2009 is a decision arrived at within the plenitude of its discretion on assessment of the need to filling up of vacant posts of Gazetted Head Masters Grade-II vis-à-vis conformity with the text and substance of the relevant special rules which ordain a minimum service experience of three years in the cadre of School Assistants as a condition precedent and a qualification for promotion to the category of Gazetted Head Master Grade-II. The State within its available discretion and in rational exercise of it, declined to resort to the exigent provision of Rule 10(a). For the foregoing reasons substantially, the learned Tribunal by the impugned order dt. 26.2.2010 rejected O.A.No. 11489 of 2009 along with M.A.No. 2370 of 2009, a decision which warrants no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ R.KANTHA RAOMJ 21.6.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 13687 of 2010. DT. 21.6.2010.