IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4761 of 2008 Between: B. Rajender Kumar, S/o. B.P. Samuel, O/o. SDOP, Gayatrinagar, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief General Manager, Bharatiya Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL), Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Principal General Manager, Suryalok complex, Abids, Hyderabad. 3 The Sub Divisional Officer, (Rectt.) Section, Suryalok complex, Abids, Hyderabad. 4 The Sub Divisional Officer, Phones, Out Door, Gayatrinagar, Plot No.66, Hastinapuram (North), Near Santhoshimata Temple, Hyderabad. 5 The Assistant General Manager (SR), For Chief General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad. 6 Ch. Suguna, Senior Telecom Office Assistant (G), O/o. The Assistant General Manager (SR), For Chief General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, A.P. Cirlce, Hyderabad. 7 B. Jaya Prakash Kumar, Senior Telecom Office Assistant (G), O/o. The Assistant General Manager (SR), For Chief General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, A.P. Cirlce, 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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings No.TA/RE/22- 10/05Review/Conf/28, dated 18.01.2008 on the file of the 5th respondent by declaring the action of the rspondents in not considering thE case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of T.T.A. (Telecom Technical Assistant) as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and set aside the same in so far as the unofficial respondents are concerned and consequently direct the official rspondents to promote the petitioner as T.T.A. (Telecom Technical Assistant) on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits such as seniority etc. and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.LAKSHMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.(SC FOR B.S.N.L) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4761 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Telephone Mechanic. The next higher post is Telecom Technical Assistant (TTA). Promotion to that post is on the basis of performance in the written test and interview, restricted to departmental candidates. The petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste. The respondents have undertaken promotions to the backlog vacancies of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates in the post of TTA. A notification was issued, inviting applications from the departmental candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe. This was followed by a written test and interview. The petitioner did not secure minimum marks in the written test and interview. In accordance with the policy evolved by the Department, the petitioner was added grace marks and made eligible from the point of view of written test and interview. However, he was not selected, whereas other candidates belonging to that category were selected and promoted, vide proceedings, dated 18.01.2008. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, stating inter alia that 11 grace marks were added to the petitioner and made eligible. According to them, the vacancies are referable to the year 2004 and evaluation of the confidential reports for five years was undertaken and in the process, the petitioner was found to be unfit. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit, disputing the contents of the counter affidavit. Heard Sri P.Lakshmana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. C.Vani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. Though the selection process, by way of promotion, was limited to the backlog vacancies, it emerged that several candidates did not secure even the minimum marks. With a view to provide an opportunity for them, to be promoted, the respondents have added the required number of marks. In the process, the petitioner was added 11 marks and thereby, brought to the level of eligibility. The next step is evaluation of the confidential reports. The respondents took the view that the petitioner was not at all fit. His unauthorized absence for a spell of about 10 months in the year 2007 was also referred to. Since the acts or omissions on the part of the petitioner subsequent to the year 2004 cannot be taken into account, this Court directed the respondents to produce the record. A perusal of the same discloses that the performance of the petitioner in the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 was evaluated as ‘average’ and on every occasion, it was noted that he needs constant supervision. It was only in the year 2004, that he was evaluated as ‘good’. Following the guidelines in the matter of evaluation of the confidential reports, the selection committee found the petitioner unfit. Further, there existed a recommendation for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. To be more objective, this Court verified the method of evaluation of other candidates belonging to S.C. and S.T., who were selected and appointed through the impugned order. No candidate, with such performance or confidential report, was selected. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 16.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4761 of 2008 Date: 16.04.2008 JSU