HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 27272 OF 2010 Between: Y. V. Ramana S/o Durgappa ………….Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapur and six others ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice N.R.L.Nageswara Rao) This Writ Petition is filed against the order dated 26.10.2010 of the Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No. 1861 of 2009, wherein the challenge made by the Writ Petitioner for demoting him or reversion from the original post to Junior Assistant was not accepted. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant and he belongs to ST (male) category. During the year 2007 a vacancy had arisen for the promotion as Senior Assistant in the cadre of ST (Women) as the only lady candidate J. Madhavi, who was junior to the petitioner and who was eligible for promotion was under punishment of censure, was not considered and therefore by virtue of provisions of appointment, the petitioner in the ST (Women) category was appointed. Thereafter, the censure against J. Madhavi was set aside and consequently, there was no punishment against her. Therefore, she has approached Superintendent of Police, Ananthapur for giving her promotion as Senior Assistant. Since the punishment against her ceased to have any effect by the date of promotion and when the category wise post ST (women) was available, she has become entitled and consequently an order was passed by the Superintendent of Police reverting the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant. Challenging that order, the applicant has filed O.A No. 186 of 2009 before the Administrative Tribunal and J. Madhavi also filed an application before the Tribunal. Both the applications were heard together by the learned Tribunal and passed the common order was passed dismissing the application of the petitioner herein and directing the respondents therein to consider the application of J. Machavi. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is field challenging the said order. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is any irregularity or illegality committed by the Tribunal in setting aside the promotion of the petitioner as per the orders of the Superintendent of Police? The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no notice was given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. But, however, it is to be noted that as per the order, the promotion given to the petitioner is only temporary one and he can be reverted to his original post without any notice. The eligibility of the petitioner to the promotion has occurred only because the other competent person J. Madhavi was under censure and therefore, she could not be considered and when the punishment of censure was set aside by the date of promotion she is only eligible mainly in the reserved category of women. The petitioner who is male category cannot claim any appointment against women category; therefore, there are absolutely no merits in the claim of the petitioner. The reversion given to the petitioner is not as a matter of punishment and there are no tenable grounds or grievance to the petitioner and the order of the learned Tribunal is perfectly legal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ___________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J DATE: 21.02.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.