IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8093 of 2007 Between: 1 T.Vijitha Devi, d/o T.Vasudeva Reddy, R/o H.No.2-2-25/3/6, D.D.Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. 2 D.Jyothi Sree, w/o C.Rajender Reddy, R/o 12-2-460/6, Jeevan kalyan Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad-500 028. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Eruvaka Building, Khairatabad, Hyderabad rep., by its Registrar. 2 Sri K.Madhukumar, District Forum II, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus i) declaring the order of the ﬁrst respondent in Proc.Roc.No.146/APSCDRC/ADMN/2005 dated 21-06-2005 and the order in Roc.No.61/APSCDRC/ADMN/2006 dated 28-02-2007 promoting the second respondent as Senior Assistant and Head Assistant/Sheristadar respectively as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Art.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same; ii) to direct the respondent No.1 to promote the petitioner No.1 as Head Assistant/Sheristadar in District Forum-II, Hyderabad; and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : G.P.for Civil Supplies Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MRS.SUJATHA V. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8093 of 2007 ORDER: Petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistants by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 1st respondent herein, in the years 1994 and 1996, respectively. The 2nd respondent was appointed as Junior Stenographer by the 1st respondent. Petitioners were promoted as Senior Assistants, vide proceedings dated 21.06.2005. Through the same proceedings, the 1st respondent promoted the 2nd respondent also as Senior Assistant, though he did not pass the Civil Judicial Test Part-II, Criminal Judicial Test and Accounts Test for Subordinate Oﬃcers Part-I, and he was put on probation for a period of one year. He was required to pass the said tests within that period. A condition was imposed to the eﬀect that he shall be reverted, in case he fails to pass the said tests. Later, the 1st respondent promoted the 2nd respondent as Sheristadar, vide proceedings, dated 28.02.2007. Petitioners feel aggrieved by the said promotion. They contend that the promotion of the 2nd respondent on 21.06.2005 was totally untenable, inasmuch as he did not possess the prescribed qualiﬁcations, and even within the period of probation, he did not pass the tests. According to them, when the 2nd respondent was ineligible to be appointed as Senior Assistant, he ought not to have been treated as senior to them for the purpose of promotion to the post of Sheristadar. Respondents 1 and 2 ﬁled separate counter aﬃdavits. It is stated that the 2nd respondent is senior to the petitioners, at the stage of initial appointments, and since all of them were promoted as Senior Assistants on one and the same day, their seniority is to be determined with reference to the dates of their initial appointment. Heard Sri A.Sudershan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing for the 1st respondent, and Smt. V.Sujatha, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The controversy in this writ petition is in a very narrow compass. Petitioners and the 2nd respondent were holding the posts of Junior Assistant or Junior Stenographer, as the case may be, which, in turn, are the feeder posts for the post of Senior Assistant. It is not in dispute that a candidate must pass Civil Judicial Test Part-II, Criminal Judicial Test and Accounts Test for Subordinate Oﬃcers Part-I, for being promoted as Senior Assistant. Admittedly, petitioners passed these tests, whereas the 2nd respondent did not possess these qualiﬁcations as on 21.06.2005. Though the 1st respondent promoted all the three, on temporary basis, under Rule 10(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules on the said date, he imposed a condition that the 2nd respondent must pass the tests within a period of one year, during which period he was kept on probation. The respondents are not able to trace the power of the 1st respondent, to give such an exemption or to effect promotion of a candidate, who does not possess the requisite qualification. It is not as if any fresh appointment of the 2nd respondent was made after he acquired the qualiﬁcation. Had the 1st respondent issued any fresh order of appointment to the 2nd respondent after he acquired the qualiﬁcations, he would naturally have become junior to the petitioners. On the other hand, if the appointment of the 2nd respondent is to be treated, as the one, under the order dated 21.06.2005, it becomes untenable. At the most, he can be deemed to have been appointed validly with eﬀect from the date, on which he acquired the requisite qualiﬁcation. Either way, he happens to be junior to the petitioners, in the category of Senior Assistant. Therefore, the 1st respondent ought not to have promoted the 2nd respondent, in preference to the petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.02.2007 is set aside. It is, however, directed that the 1st respondent can consider the feasibility of appointing the 2nd respondent against a clear vacancy of Sheristadar, only after the petitioners herein are promoted to that post. ____________________ (L.Narasimha Reddy, J) 25th August 2008 sh