IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 19149 of 2006 Between: M.N. Prasad S/o. Narayana R/o. Nandyal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Board of Directors of Andhra Pragati Grameena Bank, Cuddapah, Rep. by its Chairman. 2 The Chairman, Andhra Pragati Grameena Bank, Cuddapah, Cuddapah 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 directions to the respondents by way of writ or order particularly one in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as per the seniority list on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits by declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the promotion of the petitioner as per seniority as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of article 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the promotion of the petitioner as per seniority list as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion as per seniority list on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits. The facts are not much in dispute. It seems, earlier petitioner filed W.P.No.18709 of 1988 challenging termination of his service. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 7.10.1994 by quashing the impugned order passed by second respondent-disciplinary authority as confirmed by the first respondent-appellate authority. In the said order, it was made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to all the benefits and advantages – pecuniary or otherwise which flow from the quashing of the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents have carried the matter in appeal before the Division Bench and the Division Bench refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. Thereafter, the matter went upto Supreme Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. Therefore, petitioner was reinstated into service on 15.5.1996 with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. However, when the petitioner’s case was not considered for promotion to the higher post, he filed another W.P.No.29097 of 1998 before this Court and the said writ petition was allowed by order dated 26.7.2002 directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Officer with reference to the year 1988 in accordance with the procedure that was prevalent at that time. If he is found not suitable with reference to the year 1988, he shall be considered for promotion along with the candidates promoted in the year 1989 in accordance with the procedure that was adopted for that promotion. This exercise shall be concluded within two months from the date of receipt of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents carried the matter in W.A.No.1912 of 2002. However, the appellate Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge and disposed of the same by order dated 17.8.2005 holding that in view of the fact that petitioner was not in service at the relevant time of conducting promotional tests and in the facts and circumstances of the case, modified the order of learned single Judge to the extent that the respondents shall consider the case of petitioner in accordance with the procedure and rules that were made applicable during the year 1988-89, in case such procedure and rules are available at the present. Upto 22.6.2001, the procedure that was in vogue for the purpose of promotion was only seniority. With effect from 22.6.2001, the procedure was altered and in the result, candidates those who were eligible for being promoted were subjected to written and oral tests and also some benchmark was fixed. The learned counsel for petitioner states that the petitioner had fared well in the written test as well as in the interview conducted during the year 2005, therefore denial of promotion of petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. Whereas in the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that as per the procedure evolved after 22.6.2001, the overall percentage of marks to be obtained by the general candidates is 50 and the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is 45. Unless and until, the average 45 marks is obtained, even the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates cannot be considered for further promotion even as per Article 16(4)(a) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for respondents placed before the Court the selection proceedings in respect of promotions from Clerk-cum-Cashier to the cadre of Officer Scale-I held on 19.7.2005, 20.7.2005 and 29.9.2005, which shows that the petitioner secured 37 marks out of 70 marks in the written test and performance out of 10, he got two marks and in the interview out of 20, he got only two marks. Thus, in total he got only 41% marks. The learned counsel for respondents states that had the petitioner got more than 45%, probably, he would have been considered for promotion. Another Scheduled Caste candidate who got more marks was considered for promotion. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner was not entitled for promotion only on seniority basis and further he also failed to secure the required marks. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. However, this will not preclude the respondents from considering the case of petitioner in future vacancies, as per law. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 4.3.2008 DA