IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 23753 of 2007 Between: The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 P.Lakshmamma O/o. M.P.D.O. Tripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda District. 2 S.D.Estheramma O/o. M.P.D.O. Narketpally, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned judgment in O.A.No.5624/2006 dt. 13.07.2007 passed by the A.P.A.T. as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.ELISHA Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.23753 of 2007 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled by the Chief Executive Oﬃcer, Zilla Parishad, Nalgonda, challenging the order dated 13-07-2007 passed in O.A.No.5624 of 2006 on the ﬁle of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The ﬁrst respondent - applicant ﬁled the above O.A. challenging the promotion of second respondent herein as Superintendent and seeking a direction to promote her in that post on par with other Senior Assistants, who were promoted vide proceedings dated 24-08-2006 issued by the ﬁrst respondent. The case of the applicant is that she is fully qualiﬁed and eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent and that she is senior to the second respondent. The petitioner contended that the applicant has not qualiﬁed in the prescribed departmental test as on 01-09- 2005 and as such, she was not eligible for inclusion in the relevant panel year. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions held that the ﬁrst respondent – applicant is entitled for promotion to the post of Superintendent from the date when her junior was promoted i.e. on 24-08-2006. Aggrieved thereby, the oﬃcial respondent in O.A. ﬁled this writ petition. 3. Heard learned standing counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the ﬁrst respondent and perused the record. 4. Learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the aggrieved party is unoﬃcial respondent and it is essential for the ﬁrst respondent to pass the prescribed departmental test for promotion to the post of Superintendent, and as such, her probation cannot be declared. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent–applicant contended that the applicant had appeared for departmental test in June, 2005 and result was declared in August, 2005, therefore the applicant deemed to have passed the test in June, 2005. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side. The facts are not much in dispute. The applicant had appeared for Accounts Test on 13-6-2005 and the result was declared in August, 2005, which was published in APPSC Udyoga Samacharam in December, 2005. It appears, the applicant was given exemption from passing the departmental test on completion of 45 years of age. The applicant had passed the departmental test, which is not denied, and the second respondent herein was promoted on 24-8-2006, by which time the applicant had already passed the test. Apart from this, the applicant had appeared for the departmental test in June, 2005 and though the result was published much later, it must be deemed that she had passed the test in June, 2005 itself, in view of the ratio laid down in JVSRP PURNANANDA RAO Vs. COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, A.P. [1]. Thus, the applicant is entitled for promotion to the post of Superintendent on par with her junior, as rightly held by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we do not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity in the impugned order to dislodge the ﬁndings in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 28-08-2008 Bsc [1] 2006 (1) ALT 528 (D.B.)