Wp/31699/2010 Of Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax v. J.radha Krishna Prasad

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE ABHINAND KUMAR ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR WRIT PETITION NO: 31699 QE?O'!0 Between: Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Hyderabad-1, [Hyderabad] ...PETITIONER AND 1J.Radha Krishna Prasad, Tax Assistant, O/o. [Additional ][ClT, ][Range-|, ][4th]Floor, lncome Tax Office, Rajkamal Complex, [Lakshmipuram ][Main Road,]Guntur, Guntur District 522 007. [Rl/o ]D. No.16-20-60, [Kondavari Street, ][Old]Guntur, Guntur.Floor, lncome Tax Office, Rajkamal Complex, [Lakshmipuram ][Main Road,]Guntur, Guntur District 522 007. [Rl/o ]D. No.16-20-60, [Kondavari Street, ][Old]Guntur, Guntur. 2Y.Bhaskar Rao, Occ:Tax Assistant, Oio. Additional ClT, [Range-2, ]t"t [Floor,]CR Building, M.G.Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District, [R/o. Flat No.4, ] Apts., Opp Masjid Kalanjali, Labbipet, Vijayawada [- ][10]CR Building, M.G.Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District, [R/o. Flat No.4, ] Apts., Opp Masjid Kalanjali, Labbipet, Vijayawada [- ][10] .7V.Mohan Krishna, Occ: Tax Assistant, Oio. CIT [(Central), Aaykar Bhavan,]Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, R/o. 3-9-385/'1 , Saraswati [Kunta check Post, ][L.B.]Nagar, Hyderabad - 5O0 074.Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, R/o. 3-9-385/'1 , Saraswati [Kunta check Post, ][L.B.]Nagar, Hyderabad - 5O0 074. 4Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Basheerbagh, [Hyderabad,]rep., by its Registrar.rep., by its Registrar. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia [praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the [High Court may ][be]pleased to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature ofWrit of Certiorari and call for records in O.A.No.77O of 2010 [on the ][file of ][Central]Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and [declare ][the ][impugned]orders in said O-A.No.770 of 2010 dated 9.09.2010 as illegal, unjust [and contrary]to {aw and material on record and set aside the same. t.A. NO : 1 OF 2010(WFMP. NO:40310 OF 2010 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated [in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the High Court may be [pleased ][to]suspend the operation of orders in O.A.No.770 of 2010 on the file of CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad Bench dated 9.9.2010,pending disposal of writ petition in the interest of [justice,] l.A. NO: 1OF 2011('WVMP. NO:835 OF 2011) Between: '1 . J.Radha Krishna Prasad S/o.V Subha Rao, Tax Assistant, O/o. AdditionalClT, Range-|, 4th Floor, lncome Tax Office, Rajkamal Complex,Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur, Guntur District 522 007. R/o D. No.16-20-60, Kondavari Street, Old Guntur, Guntur.ClT, Range-|, 4th Floor, lncome Tax Office, Rajkamal Complex,Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur, Guntur District 522 007. R/o D. No.16-20-60, Kondavari Street, Old Guntur, Guntur. 2. Y.Bhaskar Rao, S/o. Y Rama Chandraih Occ:Tax Assistant, O/o. AdditionalClT, Range-2, 1't Floor, CR Building, tr/.G.Road, Vijayawada, KrishnaDistrict, R/o. Flat No.4, SPIC Apts., Opp Masjid Kalanjali, Labbipet,Vijayawada - ['10]ClT, Range-2, 1't Floor, CR Building, tr/.G.Road, Vijayawada, KrishnaDistrict, R/o. Flat No.4, SPIC Apts., Opp Masjid Kalanjali, Labbipet,Vijayawada - ['10] ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 AND 1. Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Hyderabad-1, Hyderabad.2. V.Mohan Krishna, S/o. V Natraj, Occ: Tax Assistant, O/o. CIT [(Central),]Aaykar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, R/o. 3-9-385/1 , Saraswati Kuntacheck Post, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad [[- ]]500 074.2. V.Mohan Krishna, S/o. V Natraj, Occ: Tax Assistant, O/o. CIT [(Central),]Aaykar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, R/o. 3-9-385/1 , Saraswati Kuntacheck Post, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad [[- ]]500 074. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 AND 1. Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Hyderabad-1, Hyderabad.2. V.Mohan Krishna, S/o. V Natraj, Occ: Tax Assistant, O/o. CIT [(Central),]Aaykar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, R/o. 3-9-385/1 , Saraswati Kuntacheck Post, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad [[- ]]500 074.2. V.Mohan Krishna, S/o. V Natraj, Occ: Tax Assistant, O/o. CIT [(Central),]Aaykar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, R/o. 3-9-385/1 , Saraswati Kuntacheck Post, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad [[- ]]500 074. [[- ]]3. Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Basheerbagh,Hyderabad, rep., by its Registrar.Hyderabad, rep., by its Registrar. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS (R2 and R3 are not necessary parties in this Vacate [petition)] Petition under Section 151 CPC [praying ]that in the circumstances stated [in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the High Court may be [pleased vacate]the interim direction passed in WPMP No. 40310 of 2010 in WP No. 31699 of [2010]dated 2O.12.2O10 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (Dy. SoLlClToR GENERAL oF INDIA) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: SRI J. SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI WSTICE ABHIT{AND KI'MAR SHAVILTAI{DHON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAOWRIP PETITION No.31699 OF 2O1O ORDER:r Hon'ble Si Justice Abhinand Kumnr Shauili) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by tlle order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench,Hyderabad (for short, 'the TribunalJ in O.A.No.77O of 2OlO,dated 09.O9.2010. 2. Heard learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for theGeneral of India for theof India for theIndia for thefor thethepetitioner and Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the respondentNos. 1 and 2. Heard learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for theGeneral of India for theof India for theIndia for thefor thethe It has been contended by the been contended by the contended by the by the petitioner that that the 3. It has been contended by the been contended by the contended by the by the petitioner that that therespondents were working as Tax Assistants and they werecontending that they have become Tax Assistant from the feedercadre of LDCs and later, theywerere-designated as TaxAssistants in the year 20O1. In the year 20O1, re-structure hastaken place in the Department and they were promoted as SeniorTax Assistants in March, 2OO7 . While the respondents were working, they were reverted to the post of Tax Assistants fromt1le post of Senior Tax Assistalts during November, 2OO7 andrespondents were transferred from Gujarat charge to AndhraPradesh charge vide proceedings dated O2.0l.2OOg on theirrequest. All the respondents have joined in Andhra pradeshcharge on 15.O1.2O08 duly accepting the bottom seniority amongthe Tax Assistants working in Andhra pradesh charge andrespondents have submitted a representation to consider theircase for promorion to the Senior Tax Assistants based upon theireligibility. When their case was not considered for promotion tothe post of Senior Tax Assistants, the respondents haveapproached the Tribunal by hling O.A. No.770 of 2010 and theTribunal was pleased to allow the O.A. vide order, dated09.O9.2OlO and directed the petitioner to promote therespondents as Senior Tax Assistants duly taking into accountthe Note I below para 12 of the recruitment Rules withoutappreciating arry of the contentions raised by the petitioner.4. karned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for thepetitioner had contended that when the respondents have taken bottom seniority in Andhra pradesh charge, on their requesttransferred from Gujarat charge to Andhra pradesh charge, theircase could not be considered for promotion to the post of Seniortransferred from Gujarat charge to Andhra pradesh charge, theircase could not be considered for promotion to the post of SeniorTax Assistants without completing three years of service inAndhra Pradesh charge. This fact was not properly appreciatedby the Tribunal and the Tribunal has mechanically directed thepetitioner to consider the case of respondents for promotion toby the Tribunal and the Tribunal has mechanically directed thepetitioner to consider the case of respondents for promotion tothe post of Senior Tax Assistants in terms of the recruitmentRules. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the WritPetition by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal inRules. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the WritPetition by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal inO.A.No.770 of 2010, dated 09.O9.2010 and allow the WritPetition.Petition. 5. Learned counsel for respondents has contended that as perrecruitment Ru1es, the only requirement is that, one mustcomplete three years of service as Tax Assistants. It is notspecified in the recruitment Rules that one should complete threeyears of service in the trarrsferred charge. As long as therecruitment Rules make the respondents eligible, the petitioner isbound to consider the case of respondents for promotion to the iII post of Senior Tax Assistants. Right to be considered forpromotion is a fundamental right, though right to promotion maynot be a fundamental right. The Tribunal has merely directedthe petitioner to consider the case of respondents. Therefore,there is no positive mandamus given to the petitioner tochallenge the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal hasmerely directed the petitioner to consider the case of respondentsfor promotion to the post of Senior Tax Assistants in terms ofrecruitment RulesTherefore, there are no merits in the WritPetition and the same is liable to be dismissed. This Court, having considered having considered considered the rival submissions maderival submissions madesubmissions mademade 6This Court, having considered having considered considered the rival submissions maderival submissions madesubmissions mademadeby the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of theconsidered view that the Tribunal was justifred in allowing theO.A. in favour of respondents as the Tribunal has merelydirected the petitioner to consider the case of respondents forpromotion to the post of Senior Tax Assistants as perrecruitment Rules. Right to be considered is a tundamental rightguaranteed under the Constitution of India. Therefore, we do not see any infrrmity in the order passed by the Tribunal and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall beno order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-MOHD ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY//SECTION OER t9'',. on" CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar (Dy-,.Solicitor General of lndia) [.PUC]cc i. [sri ] [Sudheer, ][Advocate ]cc i. [sri ] [Sudheer, ][Advocate ]i. il; 3. Two CD [CoPies]3. Two CD [CoPies] TJSB I HIGH COURT DATED:2910212024 ORDER WP.No.31699 of 2010 1ItLlIt.1ri.eo,qf,)o07t{AY2024aJ,4**t)tsPTc DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS. 1P