THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.NO.16610 of 2011 Between: 1.The State of A.P. represented by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and another. . .Petitioners And 1.Smt.Ch.Swarna Kumari, W/o Ch.Ravindranath and another. .. Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.NO.16610 of 2011 ORDER: (Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Respondents in O.A.No.1653 of 2008 assails the order of the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Tribunal) dated 10.12.2010, allowing the O.A. and declaring that the 1st respondent-applicant is entitled for promotion as Librarian in Government Degree College with effect from 22.12.2004 and entitled for notional promotion from that date with all consequential benefits. As she had retired from service on superannuation on 31.07.2007, a consequent direction is issued to the writ petitioners to fix the pay of the applicant in the promotional post and determine her pension and pay arrears due thereby, within the time stipulated. The factual matrix on consideration of which the order aforementioned was passed by the Tribunal may briefly be noticed: By 2003 the applicant was eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Graduate Librarian in Degree Colleges. During the panel year 2003-2004 two vacancies in the cadre of Graduate Librarian in Government Degree Colleges arose. In the list of candidates as per seniority, the applicant was shown at Sl.No.2. On 16.12.2004 the Departmental Promotions Committee (DPC) considered the name of K.Madhusudhan at Sl.No.1 and another candidate G.Vijayalakshmi at Sl.No.2 and it was considered that the first vacancy was for the reserved category BC-D and the second vacancy for the other reserved category SC (W). Subsequently, K.Madhusudhan and G.Vijayalakshmi, who were promoted as Graduate Librarians in Government Degree College in City Cadre, did not join the promotional posts and relinquished their promotions. Consequently the two vacancies remained unfilled. For the subsequent panel year 2004-2005 and thereafter too, the vacancies were not filled up till the applicant’s retirement on 31.07.2007. In the above circumstances, she filed the O.A. The Tribunal followed the principle enunciated by this Court in some what similar context, in the decision of a learned Division Bench of this Court in State of A.P. V. C.Srinivasulu Reddy[1], wherein also relief was granted to an employee who was not granted notional promotion when his case was not considered in his due turn. In the present case as well, when K.Madhusudhan and G.Vijayalakshmi, who were promoted, declined and relinquished the promotional posts as Graduate Librarians, if soon thereafter the case of the applicant had been considered, she would have obtained promotion as Graduate Librarian, even before her retirement. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II would contend that the statutory rules were amended on 14.05.2007 and as per the amendment, a Masters Degree in Library Science is the prescribed qualification for promotion to the post of Graduate Librarian. The only grievance of the petitioners is that since 14.05.2007 a Masters Degree is the prescribed qualification, granting notional promotion to the applicant with effect from 16.12.2004 (the date on which K.Madhusudhan and G.Vijayalakshmi were promoted as Graduate Librarians) would offend the amended rules. The above contention is misconceived. The Tribunal considered the totality of facts and circumstances and concluded rightly that when K.Madhusudhan and G.Vijayalakshmi had relinquished the promotions, the applicant ought to have been considered for promotion from the date of their relinquishment i.e., 22.12.2004, since as on 22.12.2004 the applicant was eligible and qualified to be promoted. Hence, no violation of the amended statutory rules occurs. On the above analysis, we find no grounds for interference in the order of the Tribunal, warranting judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits in the Writ Petition and accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission, but in the circumstances of the case without costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM _______________________________________ JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 19.12.2011 Gsn [1] 2003 (5) ALD 697 (DB)