Wp/14902/2006 Of The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Hyderabad v. G.v. Subramanyam, Hyderabad

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE oF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWOTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAOANDTHE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANt WRIT PETITIoN NO: 14902 0F 2006 Between: The chief commissioner of rncome Tax-r, Andhra pradesh,. gth Froor,Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-l ...PETITIONER AND 9.V. [Subramanyam, ][S/o. ][Ranga Rao, Occ: Stenoorapher ]Gr.ll Rl/o. C_82.rncome tax Cotony, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hrderabad_soo 034. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High ['cJu.t ]mav oepleased to issue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of wRli oFof CERTIORARI the central to call for Administrative the records in Tribunar, oA No. 27312004 Hyderabad dt. 1.1-11-2004 Bench, Hyoeraoaaon the fileconsequently declare the same as arbitrary, contrary to law and quash the same. WPMP. NO:'18581 oF 2006 Petition under section 15'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, ine High court may be pleased tosuspend the operation of orders in oA No. 273/2004 dt. 11-1 1-204 oi the file ofthe central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, pendingdisposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.NARASIMHA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI D.V. NAGARJUNA BABU The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAOHON,BLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI W.P. No.l4902 of 2OO6 ORDER: (eer ffontle Sri Justice p Naveen Rao) Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri B.Narasimha Sharmaand learned counsel for respondents Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu,2. Respondent joined the service as Stenographer Grade IIIon 4.5.1988 and was posted at Rajkot in Gujarat charge. On aand learned counsel for respondents Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu,2. Respondent joined the service as Stenographer Grade IIIon 4.5.1988 and was posted at Rajkot in Gujarat charge. On arequest made by him, he was transferred to A.p. Charge and posted atHyderabad in November, 199 1. He was promoted as StenographerHyderabad in November, 199 1. He was promoted as StenographerGrade II in September, 1999. The next avenue for advancement inservice is to the post of Stenographer Grade I. The promotion to thepost of Stenographer Grade I is based on seniority subject tosuitability as assessed by duly constituted Departmental promotionalCommittee. Further, the person must have 5 years of service asStenographer Grade Ii and shall be entitled to one year of weightage ofpost of Stenographer Grade I is based on seniority subject tosuitability as assessed by duly constituted Departmental promotionalCommittee. Further, the person must have 5 years of service asStenographer Grade Ii and shall be entitled to one year of weightage ofservice for every two years of service as Stenographer after deducting5 years of total regular service rendered as Stenographer Grade IIIwith minimum of 2 years of service as Stenographer Grade II.5 years of total regular service rendered as Stenographer Grade IIIwith minimum of 2 years of service as Stenographer Grade II. 3. According to respondent, he has rendered 11 years ofservice in Grade III and completed 2 years of service in Grade II andthus he is fully quaiified and eligible to be considered for promotion.Alleging that even though vacancies were available and he was suitable and eligible and senior most person, he was not consideredand that his representations were not acted upon, he instituted O,A.and that his representations were not acted upon, he instituted O,A.No. 273 of 2oo4 in centrar Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad be,ch. 3. According to respondent, he has rendered 11 years ofservice in Grade III and completed 2 years of service in Grade II andthus he is fully quaiified and eligible to be considered for promotion.Alleging that even though vacancies were available and he was suitable and eligible and senior most person, he was not consideredand that his representations were not acted upon, he instituted O,A.and that his representations were not acted upon, he instituted O,A.No. 273 of 2oo4 in centrar Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad be,ch. 4. The claim of the respondent was opposed by theDepartment. According to petitioners there were 13 unreservedvacancies during the recruitment year 2oo2-o3. The DepartmentalPromotion committee in its meeting held on 26.4.2002 consideredeligibility of candidates in the feeder cadre and 12 candidates weredrafted for promotion as Grade I leaving one vacancy unfilled.According to petitioners the last person drafted by the DpC stood atserial no.16, whereas respondent stood at seriar no.3g in the senioritylist drawn as on 1.9.2001. It was also contended that as respondentcame on inter-change transfer on his own, he was shown at thebottom of the seniority list that he has to furfi11 his eligibility in theA.P. Charge and that service rendered in Gujarat charge cannot becounted' It is further asserted that person similar to him shown atserial no.26 was also not promoted, though he is senior to respondentand therefore, the claim of the respondent is not valid. 5. From the averments made by either side, two aspects arenoticed. First is fulfinment of the eligibility criteria for promotion tothe post of Stenographer Grade I and second is seniority. 6. Admittedly, respondent was transferred from one unit ofappointment to another unit on his request, as such, he would forego seniority in the previous unit and he was rightly shown at the bottomof the seniority list drawn as on 1.9.2001. The second aspect iseligibility for promotion. As per Rules as noticed by the Tribunal,person is required to complete minimum of 5 years of service asStenographer Grade III, 2 years of service as Stenographer Grade IIand such service is not necessarily to be rendered in a [particular ]unit.It is settied principle of law that merely because a person istransferred from one unit of appointment to another unit, the servicerendered by him in a particular cadre/unit does not get wiped out.The Tribunal directed petitioners to consider claim of respondent asper his seniority by computing weightage of service rendered by him inGujarat charge before his transfer to A.P. charge. In thecircumstances, we see no error in the decision of the Tribunalwarranting interference of this Court. Court is informed that based onhis seniority, he was subsequently promoted as Stenographer Grade L7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.Miscellaneous applications, il any pending stand closed. SD/.N,CHANDRA SEKHAR ASSISTANT REGISTRARa.//TRUE COPY'htSECTION OFFICERTo,I1. One CC to SRI B.NARASIMHA [SARMA, ][Advocate ] 2. One CC to SRI [D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU, ][Advocate ] 3. Two C.D. Copies.4. One Spare [CoPY.]MRCSW{ HIGH COURT DATED:1710212022 ORDERWP.No.14902 of 2006 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS .+1[$€. ][STArt-]/I'i-afcL)25 [t{Afi ][2o?2 ][i]