IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 18861 of 2008 Between: 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Endowments), Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND K.Venkata subbaiah, Assistant Commissioner, Ongole, Prakasham District. .....RESPONDENT 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 Writ order or direction more particularly one n the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to the orders ofthe Hon'ble A.P.Admn.Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.1122/2005 dated 28-11-2007 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.18861 OF 2008 ORDER: (per GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order dated 28.11.2007 in O.A.No.1122 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The facts which are relevant and necessary for deciding the writ petition are as follows: 3. The respondent was working as Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Ongole, Prakasham District. He was qualiﬁed and eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner. When the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short ‘the D.P.C.’) was not held in the year 2004 to give promotions to the eligible candidates and the vacancies for the post of Deputy Commissioner for the year 2004-05 could not be ﬁlled up, he approached the Tribunal by ﬁling O.A.No.1122 of 2005 seeking a direction to the petitioners to immediately promote him to the post of Deputy Commissioner by conducting the D.P.C. meeting within a time frame so as to enable him to retire as Deputy Commissioner at the fag end of his career, i.e. before 31st March,2005. 4. The petitioners’ case is that the vacancies for the post of Deputy Commissioner for the year 2004-05 could not be ﬁlled up, up to the retirement of the respondent, due to the dispute regarding seniority among the Assistant Commissioners of direct recruitees and those who promoted from the feeder category of P.As. to Executive Officers. 5. During pendency of the O.A., the respondent had retired from service on 31.3.2005 while he was working as Assistant Commissioner of Endowments on attaining the age of superannuation and subsequently, the D.P.C. meeting was convened on 24.05.2005 and promotions were given to the selected Assistant Commissioners as Deputy Commissioners on 12-07-2005 and since the respondent was already retired from service on 31.03.2005 i.e. before convening of the D.P.C. meeting on 24.05.2005, the case of the respondent was not considered for promotion as Deputy Commissioner in the D.P.C. meeting. 6. Subsequently, the Tribunal, after hearing both sides and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, observed that the post of Deputy Commissioner is a selection post and according to Rule 5 of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Rules’) all promotions and appointments by transfer in the service shall be on the grounds of merit and ability and seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal. The preparation of panel shall be in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules. As per Rule 6 (c) of the Rules, the panel of candidates for promotion or appointment by transfer to a service or class of service in any case shall be prepared ordinarily in the month of September every year reckoning on 1st September of every year as the qualifying date to determine the eligibility of a candidate. 7. In the instant case, the D.P.C. meeting was conducted for the year 2004-05 on 24.5.2005. As per Rule 6 of the Rules, the panel is to be prepared as per eligibility and qualiﬁcation as on 1.9.2004, if that is so, the respondent was in service by 1.9.2004 and in all probability his name must be included in the panel. Excluding his name from the panel on the ground that he retired from service by the date of D.P.C. meeting is contrary to the rule and therefore, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. directing the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Endowments and pass necessary orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of that order. 8. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners contended that since O.A.No.3635 of 2004 ﬁled by the respondent herein earlier seeking to promote him as Deputy Commissioner, was dismissed, he cannot again ﬁle the present O.A. for the self-same relief. He further contended that since the respondent was not in service by the time the D.P.C. meeting was convened, the question of consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner does not arise. 9. It is to be noted that in O.A.No.3635 of 2004, the grievance of the respondent was that his junior was promoted to the post of Deputy Commissioner, but here is a case when the respondent was in service, the D.P.C. meeting was not convened in the year 2004, which was due, and it was conducted after respondent’s retirement from service. Hence he is deprived of his promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners ought to have convened the D.P.C. meeting as per Rule 6 of the Rules for the panel year 2004, while the respondent was in service. Further, the respondent’s name ought to have included in the panel though he retired by the date of D.P.C. meeting and he ought to have been given notional promotion from the date prior to his retirement. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the O.A. and we do not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity in the impugned order so as to call for the interference by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ___________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 01-09-2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}