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 : 33987 of 1998 Between: D.V.Prasad, S/o Venkanna, Hindu, R/o Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.E.B., Rep by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, Electricity (O & M), Vijayawada Thermal Power Station, A.P.S.E.B., Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna Dist. 3 The Superintending Engineer (E & M) Stage-II, V.T.P.S., A.P.S.E.Board, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna 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 a writ or order or direction more fully in the Nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not promoting the petitioner as Foreman Gr-I in Vijayawada Thermal Power Station immediately and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Foreman Gr-I in V.T.P.S., A.P.S.E.Board. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.K.SESHARAJYAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM The Court made the following : ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondents were not promoting him to the post of Foreman Grade-I in Vijayawada Thermal Power Station. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner joined in the respondent Board in the year 1971, studied upto 9th class and also passed I.T.I. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board brought certain categories of persons working in dead-end posts and all surplus personnel working in Lower Sileru Project, Ramagundam Thermal Power Station etc., under one cadre as Plant attendants and prepared a seniority list of all such persons depending on the date of their appointment. The petitioner claims to stand at serial number 22 in the said list. Promotion from the post of Plant attendant is to the next higher post of Foreman Grade-IV. Petitioner’s grievance is that, despite all his juniors having been promoted as Foreman Grade-IV, his case was not considered on the ground that he did not pass 9th class, which is the relevant qualification for promotion to the post of Foreman Grade–IV. Petitioner would contend that he passed I.T.I. long prior to his joining in the APSEB, that the respondents did not consider his qualification of I.T.I. despite repeated representations on his part, and that he was subsequently promoted as Foreman Grade-IV, vide memo dated 03.11.1995, exempting him from possessing the qualification prescribed for the post of Foreman Grade- IV. Petitioner would also contend that, while his juniors were promoted to the next higher post of Foreman Grades-II and I, his case was not considered for promotion ignoring his experience of 27 years. He relies on B.P.Ms.No.54 dated 20.01.1989, wherein the qualifications prescribed for promotion to the category of Foreman Grade-I were relaxed having regard to the experience of the candidate concerned and, as per the said Board Proceedings, candidates should have passed 9th class with 8 years experience in the relevant field with I.T.I. qualification and 8th class candidates were required to possess ten years experience. Petitioner would contend that though he was working for the last 27 years, and he was fully eligible for the post of Foreman Grade-I, the second respondent was maintaining the stand that the said Board Proceedings was applicable only to Kothagudem Thermal Power Station Personnel and not to Vijayawada Thermal Power Station Personnel. According to the petitioner the qualifications prescribed for the post of Foreman Grade-I, under B.P.Ms.No.54 dated 20.01.1989 should have been made applicable to the particular category in all power stations under the control of the Board. Petitioner would claim to be entitled to be promoted as Foreman Grade-I. He submits that, for no fault of his, he was denied consideration for promotion. A perusal of B.P.Ms.No.54, dated 20.01.1989 would show that the Board had issued certain directions with regard to filling up of the posts of Foreman Grade-I in all the Thermal Power Stations. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was employed in Vijayawada Thermal Power Station. Under Clause 3 of B.P.Ms.No.54 dated 20.01.1989, candidates are categorized into various sub-categories. Under Clause 3(b), qualified and unqualified personnel working in Foreman posts are also required to be considered for promotion to the posts of Foreman Grade- I. Against the quota of unqualified personnel, candidates with the qualification and service combination prescribed thereunder are required to be considered. Under clause 3(b)(a), the qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Foreman Grade-I is I.T.I with six years experience in addition to those qualifications prescribed in B.P.Ms.No.378 dated 22.04.1977. From out of the 5 posts, while 4 are to be filled up with qualified candidates, the 5th is to be filled up from the quota earmarked for unqualified personnel and, among those unqualified personnel, those who have passed 8th class with ten years and above experience. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has passed 8th class, that he has put in more than ten years service and, accordingly, was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Foreman Grade-I in the 5th post earmarked for unqualified personnel. There shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Foreman Grade-I under the quota earmarked for unqualified personnel and, if he is found to possess the qualifications prescribed in clause 3(c)(ii) or (iii) of B.P.Ms.No.54, dated 20.01.1989 and if any unqualified person junior to him in the service has been promoted as Foreman Grade-I, to consider his case for promotion on par with his juniors under this category. The entire exercise in this regard shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the respondents, would point out that since the petitioner was aged 49 years at the time of filing of this writ petition, he may have since retired from service. It is made clear that in case the petitioner is found entitled for promotion, from the date his juniors were promoted, in accordance with what has been mentioned hereinabove, then he shall be entitled for all consequential benefits including re-fixation of pay and payment of terminal benefits in the revised pay-scales. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 27th FEBRUARY, 2008. kvni ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CD copies