IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11491 of 1999 Between: T.Visweswara Rao son of Late Satyanarayana sastry Government Degree college, Tuni, East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad 2 The Prinicpal, Govt Degree College Tuni,East Godavari Distirict 3 K.Achuta Ramayya, Lecturer in Commerce, P.R. Government college, Kakinada, East Godavari 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 issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction, declaring the inaction of the respondents in not regularising the services as per Rule 23 of AP. State Subordinate service Rules, 1962 and notional promotion as Assistant Lecturer with effect from 18/05/1972 and other consequential benefits as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, and 311 of the constitution of India, and consequently set - aside the judgment of the AP. Administrative Tribunal in OA.No. 33739/91 dt. 17/11/1998 and direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date of his appointment and to give national promotions as Assistant Lecturer with effect from 18/05/1972 and the consequential benefits , and grant such other relief as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KASAJAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : ..... REGISTRAR VE & PSR, JJ. W.P.No. 11491 of 1999 O r d e r: (Per P. Swaroop Reddy, J.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the orders of the Learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No. 33739 of 1991 dated:17.11.1998. 2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition, as stated in the O.A., are: The petitioner was selected by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in 1968 as U.D.C. He possessed M.Com., Degree and opted for education department and on his request he was appointed as Tutor in Commerce in Government Degree College, Srikakulam on 5.7.1969 in which post he joined on 16.7.1969. Later he improved his qualification by securing 50% in Post Graduation in May, 1972, the minimum required marks to be considered for promotion. In 1969, the post of Tutor was included in A.P. Education Subordinate Service Rules and it was not a feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant Lecturer (it is again stated in the OA that Tutor post was feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant Lecturer- there appears to be some mistake). That appointment to the post of Assistant Lecturer would be by way of direct recruitment and also by promotion from the category of Demonstrators and Tutors. The respondents have appointed some other persons, without considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Lecturer. He submits that one K . Achuth Ramaiah, was promoted as Lecturer in Commerce in 1973, by which time the petitioner was fully qualified for promotion. He was promoted only after three-and-half years after his acquiring necessary qualifications. His grievance is that his name has to be included in the seniority of Lecturers from 1972, instead of 1975. After his promotion, the petitioner joined in the Degree College, Razole on 24.10.1975; but his service as Tutor from 16.7.1969 has to be taken into consideration for seniority and his service as U.D.C., from 17.12.1968 also have to be taken into consideration; but the respondents have regularized his services only on 31.12.1970 by orders dated:29.5.1975. 3. The learned Tribunal held that the applicant was originally appointed as Tutor, after working for some time as UDC. While working as Tutor, as he acquired necessary qualifications for promotion to the post of Assistant Lecturer w.e.f., 18.5.1972 he was later promoted as Assistant Lecturer. Meanwhile, certain juniors to him were promoted, as they had the required qualification at the relevant time; whereas the petitioner did not possess such qualification at the relevant time. After regular promotion as Assistant Lecturer, the applicant was given seniority. The earlier temporary service put- in by the petitioner in other categories such as Tutor and U.D.C., does not count for regular service and only the service in the regular post in the category of Assistant Lecturers would count for promotion in that category. Therefore, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner was qualified by securing 50% marks in M.Com., subsequently; immediately he was not considered for promotion and some others, particularly, the third respondent was promoted as Assistant Lecturer. 5. As per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition also, the petitioner improved the percentage of marks in M.Com., examination to 50% by 18.5.1972 and became eligible for promotion to the post of the Assistant Lecturer. The third respondent was originally working as Junior Lecturer in commerce, which service was not included in A.P. Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1962; but he was promoted as Assistant Lecturer ignoring the claim of the petitioner for promotion. The petitioner submits that his probation shall start from 17.12.1968, the date of his initial appointment. As per the averments made in paragraph-8 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is of not regularizing his service as per Rule 23 of A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1962 and consequently not giving notional promotion as Assistant Lecturer with effect from 18.5.1972 and his prayer is to direct the respondents to regularize his services from the date of his appointment and to give notional promotion as Assistant Lecturer with effect from 18.5.1972 and other consequential benefits. 6. Nowhere in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that the third respondent is junior to him. His grievance is that the post held by the third respondent was not in the category for promotion to the post of Assistant Lecturer. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Rule 10 (a) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1969. But this Rule provides for appointed by direct recruitment or by transfer. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the third respondent was appointed by transfer and as such there is no violation of Rule 10 (a). 7. Another important aspect is that when the third respondent was promoted in the year 1973, the petitioner never objected for the same. He neither made any representation against the same immediately, nor challenged the same by initiating legal proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner went on making representations; but there is no record to show the same. The contention of the learned counsel that he averred the same in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is also incorrect to some extent, as even according to the petitioner, he made representation, for the first time, in the year 1991 i.e., after about a decade and half. In case, really the petitioner was eligible for promotion and his junior was promoted over looking his claim, he ought to have made representation immediately. It is not clear as to whether the petitioner improved his percentage of marks to 50% by the required date and communicated the same to the authorities concerned, before the order promoting the third respondent was issued. Even till today, there is no record about the same. The petitioner kept quite for about a decade and half without taking any action. First of all, his grievance cannot be held to be correct, particularly when it is not supported by authentic material. In all the above circumstances, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J. Dated: 10---06---2009 _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. *BVS