HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION No. 1352 OF 2022 ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government pleader for services-IV for the respondents.

2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that she has not been considered for promotion as Office Superintendent in SC (Women) Category and as such, this writ petition is filed.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Senior Assistant since 30.10.2004 in the Regional Training Center, D.M & H.O Office, Kurnool District, which comes under the jurisdiction of the respondents herein. The respondent No.4 issued proceedings dated 17.06.2009 with regard to the promotion of senior assistants to the post of Office Superintendents from the year 2009 to till date for 100 points roster cycle at Sl.No.7 of roster point 47. Whereas, for SC (Women) one Smt.K.H. Vinodini who is working in Primary Health Center is shown at Sl.No.87 of roster point 87. Also her name was shown in the same seniority list at Sl.No.66 of roster point 66 for SC (Women). The name of the male candidate Sri. S.M Basha working in R.I.M.S, Kadapa, belonging to B.C category was shown at Sl.No.87. The provisional seniority list of Senior Assistants for the promotion post of Office Superintendent for the panel year 2019-2020 was prepared and in that Ms. Vinodini name was shown at Sl.No.20 belonging to S.C (Women) and shown at the end of remarks column that she relinquished promotion once on 10.10.2013 under SC (Women) category.

4. In the same seniority list at Sl.No.112 one Ms.N.B.Kezia Rani, Senior Assistant working in Primary Health Center, Government General Hospital, Kurnool was also shown in SC (Women) category but she expired. The name of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.151 who is working as Sr.Assistant in the office of DM & HO, Chittoor belonging to SC (Women) category. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents while considering the promotions for the post of Office Superintendent, they should have taken into consideration the G.O.M.S.No.558 dated 15.09.2009 an amended provision to Rule 22 (A) of A.P State Subordinate Service Rules which reads as follows:

Amendment

In rule 22-A of the said rules, after sub-rules (3) the following shall be added, namely:-

"(4) In the matter of promotion and appointment by transfer involving promotion to posts for which women and men are equally suited and where the cadre strength of posts is more than five there shall be reservation to women to an extent of 33 1/3 % in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Provided that where no eligible women candidate is available to fill up the roster point earmarked to them, the vacancy shall be filled up with the male SC/ST candidates as the case may be".

5. The counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner's case should have been considered at Sl.No.47 of the roster point 47 for SC (Women) when Ms. Vinodini did not opt for joining in the said promotion post, at any rate the case of the petitioner should have been considered at Sl.No.66 of the roster point 66 for SC (Women). But it was otherwise filled with B.C category male candidate, which is impermissible under law and contrary to GoMS.No.449, dated 15.09.2009. When Ms. K.H. Vinodhini got again her turn at Sl.No.87 at roster point 87 for SC (Women) she joined in the said promotion post. During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent No.4 had an occasion to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion vide proceedings dated 01.04.2022 and 03.04.2022. But on both the occasions the case of the petitioner was rejected. Hence, the petitioner is further aggrieved due to the non application of mind of the said respondent.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Government Pleader submits that there is no dispute with regard to the preparation of the provisional seniority of the Senior Assistants for the promotion to the post of Office Superintendent in Zone-IV for the panel year 2019-2020 and the list of Senior Assistants who got promotion to the post of Office Superintendent from 2009 to till date from 100 point roster cycle as the same was filed by the writ petitioner along with material papers.

7. The learned Government Pleader submits that the respondent No.4 rightly exercised and considered the case of the petitioner herein by passing a speaking order dated 01.04.2022 and 03.04.2022 and her case was rejected for the present on account of adequacy as per the roster points followed in respect of earlier promotions. But in reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no mention about the roster point 47 and roster point 66 as stated supra and as such the exercise shown by the respondent No.4 is not permissible under law. The same mistake he has committed even vide proceedings 03.04.2022 ignoring the relevant G.Os and amendment in State and Subordinate Service Rules.

8. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, this court finds some force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner as discussed above and as such, the orders passed by the respondent No.4 dated 01.04.2022 and 03.04.2022 are set aside herewith directing the respondent No.4 to re-examine the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the

3

above said GOs and the roster points mentioned as per the seniority list and other material available on record and the case of the petitioner shall be considered afresh in the future vacancies keeping in view that the petitioner belongs to SC (Women) category and orders shall be passed strictly in accordance with law.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

May, 05, 2022 PKR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

305

WRIT PETITION NO.1352 OF 2022

P K R

May 05, 2022