IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13846 of 2008 Between: V.R. Surender Babu S/o. V. Rober O/o. The Executive Engineer, J. Chokka Rao Godavari Lift Irrigation Project, Division No.3, K.C.Camp, Chintagattu, Warangal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent Engineer, I & CAD Department, J. Chokka Rao Godavari Lift Irriation Project Circle, K.C. Camp, Chintagattu, Warangal, Warangal District. 2 The Executive Engineer, J. Chokka Rao Godavari Lift Irriation Project, Division No.3 K.C. Camp, Chintagattu, Warangal, Warangal District. 3 The Chief Engineer, J. C.R. Godavari Lift Irriation Project, K.C. Camp, Chintagattu, Warangal, Warangal District. 4 The State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 5 M. Madhusudan, O/o. the Executive Engineer, J. Choka Rao Godavari Life Irrigation Project, Division No.3, K.C.Camp, Chintagattu, Warangal, Warangal District. 6 V. Surendar Reddy I & CAD Department, J. Choka Rao Godavari Life Irrigation Project Circle, K.C.Camp, Chintagattu, Warangal, Warangal 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 in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the proceedings No.ES/S1/EC3/94/2444/49/S dt. 07.12.2006 and Proceedings No.ES/S1/EC3/95/2450/55/S dt. 07.12.2006, issued by the 1st respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, malafide, and unconstitutional violating Article 14, 16[4] and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from violating Rule-22 of A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules, and contrary to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A.No.347/2005 dated 19.01.2005 filed by the petitioner, and set aside the same, including the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 18.06.2008 in O.A.No.7406/2006 & batch and issue consequential directions, directing the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as Superintendent and regularize his services in the cadre of Superintendent in the 1st respondent's office, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.13846 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring the proceedings Nos.ES/S1/EC3/94/2444/49/S and ES/S1/EC3/94/2450/55/S, dated 07-12-2006 issued by the first respondent, as arbitrary and illegal and also violative of Rule 22 of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules (for short ‘the Rules’). 2. The details necessary for deciding the writ petition may be stated as follows: The claim of the petitioner is that he belongs to S.C. category and he is entitled to be promoted to the post of Superintendent by following the rule of reservation as envisaged under Rule 22 of the Rules. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed in Zone-VI as L.D.C. and promoted as Senior Assistant in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Inter-State Joint Project Division, Hyderabad; that the 5th respondent belongs to Zone-V and he came to the Office where the petitioner was working, which comes under Zone-VI and that there is a dispute with regard to his seniority in Zone-VI. When the official respondent did not promote the petitioner by following the rule of reservation, he filed O.A.No.347 of 2004 and the Tribunal disposed of the same directing the official respondent to examine the case of the petitioner with reference to Rules particularly G.O.Ms.No.21 Social Welfare Department dated 18-3-2003 and G.O.Ms.No.12 GAD dated 19-4-2003. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent was promoted to the post of Superintendent contrary to the Rules and he was reverted, and before reverting, he was not given any notice whatsoever. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-II and learned counsel for 5th respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner was promoted in the category of Superintendent and the cancellation of promotion was without any notice and the Tribunal has not adverted to the pleadings and dealt with irrelevant aspects and upheld cancellation of promotion of the petitioner, erroneously. 5. Learned Government Pleader contended that in order to meet the exigency, the promotion was given temporarily to the petitioner under Rule 37 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and there was only one vacancy in the category of Superintendent. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced by the counsel on either side and gone through the pleadings in O.A. and the findings recorded by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to S.C. community and that he has been promoted as Superintendent in Zone-VI. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice and asserted that there are five vacancies in the category of Superintendent. It is not borne out of the record that a notice was given to the petitioner before the cancellation of his promotion. This is nothing but gross violation of principles of natural justice. Having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are five vacancies in the category of Superintendent, which is not seriously disputed, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of cancellation of promotion and order made in O.A.No.7406 of 2006 dated 18-06-2008 and direct the competent authority to give notice to the petitioner and afford opportunity to putforth his case. Thereafter, the authorities shall pass appropriate orders as per law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 01-07-2008 bsc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13846 of 2008 Between: V.R. Surender Babu S/o. V. Rober O/o. The Executive Engineer, J. Chokka Rao Godavari Lift Irrigation Project, Division No.3, K.C.Camp, Chintagattu, Warangal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent Engineer, I & CAD Department, J. Chokka Rao Godavari Lift Irriation Project Circle, K.C. Camp, Chintagattu, Warangal, Warangal District. 2 The Executive Engineer, J. Chokka Rao Godavari Lift Irriation Project, Division No.3 K.C. Camp, Chintagattu, Warangal, Warangal District. 3 The Chief Engineer, J. C.R. Godavari Lift Irriation Project, K.C. Camp, Chintagattu, Warangal, Warangal District. 4 The State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 5 M. Madhusudan, O/o. the Executive Engineer, J. Choka Rao Godavari Life Irrigation Project, Division No.3, K.C.Camp, Chintagattu, Warangal, Warangal District. 6 V. Surendar Reddy I & CAD Department, J. Choka Rao Godavari Life Irrigation Project Circle, K.C.Camp, Chintagattu, Warangal, Warangal 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 in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the proceedings No.ES/S1/EC3/94/2444/49/S dt. 07.12.2006 and Proceedings No.ES/S1/EC3/95/2450/55/S dt. 07.12.2006, issued by the 1st respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, malafide, and unconstitutional violating Article 14, 16[4] and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from violating Rule-22 of A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules, and contrary to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A.No.347/2005 dated 19.01.2005 filed by the petitioner, and set aside the same, including the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 18.06.2008 in O.A.No.7406/2006 & batch and issue consequential directions, directing the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as Superintendent and regularize his services in the cadre of Superintendent in the 1st respondent's office, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following :