IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.16096 of 2008 Between: R.Sreenivasa Raghavan S/o.Late T.Ranganatha Swamy District court Kurnool, R/o.Flat No.103, Viswanatha Apartments, Dharmapet, Kurnool, Kurnool District ..... PETITIONER AND The District Judge, Kurnool District, Kurnool .....RESPONDENT 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 issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the impugned order passed by the respondent dated 4.3.2008 bearing Dis.No.1722/Estt/2008 rejecting the case of the petitioner for protection of pay w.e.f. 30.11.2004 as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Transitory provision 38 contained in Revised A.P.J.M.S.Rules, of 2003 and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for protection of pay w.e.f.30.11.2004 and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon`ble court deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SMT.M.BHASKARA LAKSHMI (SC FOR APHC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.16096 of 2008 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao, J) The petitioner is Senior Assistant in the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service working in the Unit of District Judge, Kurnool. He ﬁled a writ petition, being W.P.No.21771 of 2005, seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the learned District Judge in not considering his case for promotion to next higher post as illegal and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003 (the Rules, for brevity). A Division Bench of this Court considered the writ petition. It was brought to the notice of the learned Judges that the petitioner did not pass Criminal Judicial Test as required under the Rules, and therefore, he was not promoted. The writ petition was, therefore, disposed of on 15.11.2005 observing that the petitioner may be allowed to sit for the test to be conducted in December 2005. The petitioner again made a representation to the learned District Judge on 18.02.2008 seeking grant of protection of pay from 30.11.2004 from which date his promotion as Superintendent was not considered, and also to give an opportunity to pass the requisite test as per the Rules. Learned District Judge rejected the application observing that, as the petitioner has not rendered any service as Superintendent, he is not entitled for any pay protection from 30.11.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. There is no dispute that the petitioner has not passed Criminal Judicial Test as required under Rule 8 read with Annexure – I of the Rules, which mandates that a Senior Assistant must have passed Civil Judicial Test Parts I and II, and Criminal Judicial Test, and unless and until a Senior Assistant acquires these qualiﬁcations, he is not eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent, which is category 2 post. Even when the petitioner ﬁled the earlier writ petition, being W.P.No.21771 of 2005, the action of the learned District Judge in not considering the case of the petitioner on this ground was noticed and upheld. In such an event, it is incumbent on the part of the petitioner to pass Criminal Judicial Test and then seek promotion. Without passing such test, even if he is eligible as on 30.11.2004 for such promotion, he cannot seek pay protection. It must be made clear that unless a person is qualiﬁed as per the Rules for promotion to the next higher post, he cannot claim, as of right, a consideration for the higher post nor pay protection. A person who is not qualiﬁed for promotion cannot have any legitimate expectation to seek promotion. Learned District Judge correctly considered the legal position in the background facts and was right in rejecting the representation. The Writ Petition is misconceived and without any merits, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _________________ (G.CHANDRAIAH, J) 30.07.2008 vs To 1 The District Judge, Kurnool District, Kurnool 2 2CCs to 3 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}