HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 21105 OF 2011 Between: K.V. Subba Reddy S/o Venkata Ratnam ………….Petitioner AND Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary and two others ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue an order particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the orders dated 11.11.2009 passed in O.A.No. 6326 of 2006 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short “APAT), Hydeabad, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to give notional promotion to the petitioner as Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records for pensioner benefits. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was initially appointed as Field Surveyor and promoted as Deputy Surveyor land later as Surveyor and further as Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records and retired from service on 31.12.1987. It is stated that he was not promoted as Assistant Director and kept him only in Full Additional Charge of the vacant post. His request for notional promotion with effect from 11.8.1987 was not considered by the Government. The main grievance of the petitioner is that his name was placed in the panel of Assistant Directors for the year 1987-88 but the panel was not approved as the DPC had not been convened. Therefore, the petitioner made several representations but they were not considered. Aggrieved by the same, he filed O.A., and the Tribunal dismissed the O.A by observing as under: “ It is not the case of the applicant whether any of his juniors were promoted, before his retirement, by ignoring his case for consideration. It was on the ground that the respondents failed to convene the DPC on account of which he missed the opportunity to be considered for promotion. In this type of cases, there is no remedy provided under the Rules. Therefore, the respondents were right in rejecting the representation of the applicant, through the proceedings dated 25.3.2008. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. Hence, the O.A is dismissed as devoid of merits.” The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the orders of the Tribunal in rejecting his O.A on the sole ground that the rule do not provide for consideration of such cases and therefore, the Government is justified in its stand not to give notional promotion for the post of Assistant Director for the period from 11.8.1987 to 31.12.1987 is arbitrary and unjust. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, the petitioner herein was placed in the panel of Assistant Directors for the year 1987-88 but the panel was not approved, as the DPC had not been convened. Therefore, he made a request to the Government to give notional promotion as Assistant Director but that was not considered by the Government. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents failed to convene the DPC and on account of which he missed the opportunity to be considered for promotion. It is not the case of the petitioner that his juniors were promoted before his retirement. Therefore, there is no remedy provided under the Rule to accomplish the grievance of the petitioner. Hence, we see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J DATE: 27.07.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.