IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 18794 of 2008 Between: Lingala Vijay Kumar S/o.Muttaiah Government of Junior college, Alamur Rajahmundry, East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education,Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The commissioner of Collegiate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 3 The Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Nampally Hyderabad .....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 a direction order or orders particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the Judgment dated 18.7.2008 in OA.No.2475 of 2006 so far it is against the petitioner i.e. conﬁrming relief from 2006-07 panel as illegal, and contrary to the judgment of this Hon`ble court dated 9.7.2008 in WP.No.26698 of 2006 consequently the petitioner is entitled to consider his case for appointment by transfer in terms G.O.Ms.No.145 GAD dated 15.6.2004 from the next panel year of his eligibility and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.GOVIND Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.18794 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order dated 18-07-2008 passed in O.A.No.2475 of 2006 on the ﬁle of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, insofar as it is against the petitioner to consider for promotion for the panel year 2006-2007 only. 2. The details relevant and necessary for deciding the writ petition may be stated thus: The petitioner ﬁled the above O.A. assailing the proceedings dated 19-07-2005 rejecting his request for promotion as Principal on the ground that he did not join duty in the promotion post within the stipulated time, by observing that G.O.Ms.No.145 GAD, dated 15-6-2004 is only prospective in nature. The oﬃcial respondents resisted the OA, mainly contending that the applicant did not join in the promotion post and as such, he has forfeited the right for promotion throughout the service. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, allowed the O.A. thereby setting aside the said proceedings and directing the oﬃcial respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion for the panel year 2006-2007. Aggrieved to the extent of consideration for the panel year 2006-2007, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner had not joined the duty pursuant to promotion because of ill-health, he is entitled to be considered for promotion in the next panel year. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the common order dated 09-07-2008 passed by us in W.P.Nos.26698 of 2006 and 659 and 5213 of 2007 and contended that the petitioner’s case for promotion has to be considered for the earlier panel years also. 5. We have considered similar question whether an employee forfeits the right to be promoted throughout the service in case he does not join the duty pursuant to the promotion and the eﬀect of G.O.Ms.No.145 General Administration (Service-D) Department, dated 15-6-2004 in W.P.Nos.26698 of 2006 and 659 and 5213 of 2007 and held that the said GO has to be applied retrospectively. In the facts situation and taking into account the above judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the authority concerned shall consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal for the panel years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006- 2007, as per law. Subject to this modiﬁcation, the impugned order of the Tribunal is confirmed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 29-08-2008 bsc