IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO:8016 of 1999 Between: T. Pullaiah S/o Laxmaiah R/o Aswaraopet, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Rep. by its Associated Director of Research, Regional Agrl.Research Station, Jagityal-505327. 2 The Principal, Agricultural College, Aswaraopet, Khammam District. 3 Sri A.Rathaiah S/o not known Agricultural College, Aswaraopet, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings bearing No.A2/(NT)/30/98 dt.23-3-1999 as illegal and ultra vires to the provisions of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner as Record Assistant in the existing vacancy. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.S.R.ANJANEYALU Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.B.SIVA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner, who is a Class IV employee working with the respondent university, is aggrieved by the proceedings of the university dated 22.03.1999, whereby the third respondent was promoted as a Record Assistant, while he was denied promotion. In the consolidated seniority list of Class IV employees, filed as part of the material papers enclosed to the writ petition, while Sri Md.Hussain is shown at Sl.No.1 and the third respondent at Sl.No.3, the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.2, above the third respondent. The date of birth of the petitioner is shown therein as 20.05.1964 prior to that of the third respondent, dated 10.03.1968. While both the petitioner and the third respondent joined on the same day, the petitioner passed 10th class, whereas the third respondent failed. It is also necessary to note that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste whereas the third respondent comes under the B.C. ‘B’ category. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent university. However Sri B.Siva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent university, would place before this Court a copy of the proceedings issued by the Associate Director of Research, Regional Agricultural Research Station, Jagtial dated 24.08.1999, wherein it is stated that the name of the petitioner has been considered and that posting orders posting him as Record Assistant is being issued separately. Learned Standing Counsel would submit, on instructions, that soon thereafter, the petitioner was, in fact, promoted as a Record Assistant. Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner would, however, submit that, since promotion of employees from class IV to that of Record Assistant is based purely on seniority, the petitioner being shown higher than the third respondent in the seniority list of Class IV employees, ought to have been promoted to the post of Record Assistant prior to the third respondent. No rule which prescribes the method of promotion from the Class IV posts to that of Record Assistant has, however, been brought to the notice of the Court. If, as contended by Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, promotion is only on the basis of seniority, the petitioner’s claim for promotion to the post of Record Assistant could not have been denied nor could the third respondent have been promoted to the post of Record Assistant before the petitioner was promoted to the said post. The very fact that the petitioner was promoted as Record Assistant soon thereafter in August, 1999 would show that there is nothing adverse against him. Despite service of notice on the third respondent, neither is he present nor has any counsel entered appearance on his behalf. Ends of justice would be met if the writ petition is disposed of and, instead of setting aside the promotion of the third respondent, the petitioner is held to have been promoted vide proceedings dated 22.03.1999 and the third respondent is held to have been promoted from the date on which the petitioner was subsequently promoted in August, 1999. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 27th FEBRUARY, 2008. kvni ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2CD copies