IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 999 OF 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 30/03/2007 in WP NO : 26160 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: K. Lingaiah ... APPELLANT AND 1 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep., by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and three others ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Sri K. Madhava Reddy The Court made the following: ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The appellant has been aggrieved by an order dated 30-03- 2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 26160 of 1999, whereby the petition filed by him had been rejected. 2. The appellant was working as Security Guard under respondent No.1 and thereafter, he was promoted from time to time and ultimately, he became Security Assistant Sub-Inspector on 24-11- 1994. Next promotional post from the post of Security Assistant Sub- Inspector is that of Security Sub-Inspector. 3. The appellant – petitioner was not promoted to the post of Security Sub-Inspector, whereas respondent No.4 was promoted to the said post and, therefore, he filed Writ Petition No. 26160 of 1999. After hearing the learned advocates and looking to the facts of the case, the learned single Judge was convinced that the appellant – petitioner had no right to be promoted and, therefore, the petition was rejected. 4. It is the case of the appellant – petitioner that he had been awarded certain rewards and letter of appreciation and yet, the said letter and rewards were not given any weightage at the time when his case was considered for promotion, whereas respondent No.4 was given four marks and, therefore, he secured less marks and was deprived of the promotion. 5. At the time of hearing of this appeal, we had considered the aforestated submission. The learned advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has drawn our attention to Circular No. PD- 15/1989, dated 13-02-1989, which deals with the authorities which are entitled to give appreciation letters which are to be considered at the time of giving promotion. 6. Upon perusal of the aforestated circular, we have found that the appellant was given letter of appreciation dated 03-12-1980 when he was in the lower cadre and he was given certain amount of cash by way of appreciation. It is the policy of the respondent – employer that when cash is given in lieu of a letter of appreciation, such an appreciation would not be considered at the time when promotion is to be given to the concerned employee. So far as the letter of appreciation dated 03-12-1980 is concerned, the same was given to the appellant when he was working in the lower cadre as a Security Guard and, therefore, the said letter was not given any weightage or no marks were given in respect of the said letter at the time when his case was considered for promotion. 7. We have looked into the facts of the case and have found that the appellant had secured 47 marks, whereas respondent No. 4 had secured 50 marks and, therefore, respondent No.4, who was found to be better than the appellant, was given promotion. 8. Looking to the facts of the case and upon perusal of the contents of the order passed by the learned single Judge, we find that the order is just and proper and it does not require any interference by this Court. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th August, 2009 ks