AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy
The petitioner was appointed as Stenographer, on 04.02.1985, in the Non-Conventional Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, the 2nd respondent, which was completely established and managed by the Government of A.P. The Government in Energy Department, the 1st respondent, issued G.O.Ms.No. 187, dated 04.09.1993, for upgradation of two posts of Stenographers. The petitioner and another candidate, by name K. Kishen Rao, were upgraded as Special Category Stenographers, vide proceedings, dated 02.05.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner was re-designated, as Senior Stenographer, by the 2nd respondent, through proceedings dated 21.02.1995. The 3rd respondent joined the 2nd respondent-Organization, as Sales Assistant, on 05.08.1978. His services as Office Assistant were regularized, on 01.07.1981. He was promoted as Senior Assistant, on 21.02.1995.
In the year 1994, the establishment of the 2nd respondent was re-organized and was approved by the Government vide proceedings 26.12.1994. In the establishment of the 2nd respondent, the posts of Senior Assistant and Senior Stenographer are treated on par with each other and they constitute common feeder category for the posts of Assistant Managers. The petitioner was treated as senior to the 3rd respondent in the common seniority list for the posts of Senior Stenographers/Senior Assistants and he was promoted as Assistant Manager on 18.05.2004. The 3rd respondent filed W.P.No. 9588 of 2004, pleading inter alia that he is senior to the petitioner, as Senior Assistant, in the common seniority list and that he ought to have been promoted in preference to the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent promoted the 3rd respondent as Assistant Manager vide proceedings, dated 26.05.2008. W.P.No. 9588 of 2004 was withdrawn by the 3rd respondent.
Through proceedings dated 30.05.2011, the 2nd respondent modified the final seniority list in the category of Senior Assistant/Senior Stenographer and placed the 3rd respondent above the petitioner and one Sri N. Pothanna. This writ petition is filed challenging the said proceedings. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings, dated 06.06.2011 promoting the 3rd respondent, as Manager. The petitioner amended the prayer in the writ petition, with the permission of the Court to challenge the proceedings dated 06.06.2011.
The petitioner contends that the post of Special Category Stenographers was equated to the post of Senior Stenographer and much prior to the promotion of the 3rd respondent as Senior Assistant, he has been holding the post of Senior Stenographer. He states that the 2nd respondent has taken the consistent view throughout that he is senior to the 3rd respondent and suddenly the stand was changed and the 3rd respondent was not only declared as senior, but also was promoted to the post of Manager.
Separate counter-affidavits are filed by respondents 2 and 3. According to them, the post of Senior Stenographer was created only in the year 1994 and any position held by the petitioner prior to that, is of no consequence. They state that the petitioner was placed in the post of Senior Stenographer through proceedings dated 21.02.1995 and on the same day, through separate proceedings, the 3rd respondent was promoted, as Senior Assistant. It is also stated that the post of Assistant Manager was to be filled from the common cadre of Senior Assistants/Senior Stenographers, in the ratio of 2:1. They plead that the 3rd respondent is senior to the petitioner in the entry category.
Heard Sri V.R.N. Prashanth, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Energy, for the 1st respondent, Sri Y. Rama Rao, Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri M. Ratna Reddy, Learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
The entry of the petitioner into the service of the 2nd respondent was as Stenographer, in the year 1985. Before the cadre for it came to be approved in the year 1994, the 2nd respondent was functioning with four posts of Stenographers. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 187, dated 04.09.1993, upgrading two posts of Stenographers to the category of Special Grade Stenographers with a pay-scale of Rs. 1,330-2630. It needs to be noted that the upgradation was not to the post of Senior Stenographer. The reason appears to be that by the time the said G.O. was issued, there was no post of Senior Stenographer in the 2nd respondent. It was only on 26.12.1994 that the post of Senior Stenographer was created in the set-up of the 2nd respondent. It is thereafter that the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 21.02.1995, appointing or categorizing the petitioner as Senior Stenographer.
The petitioner is reeling under the impression that he was already holding the post of Senior Stenographer by virtue of G.O.Ms.No. 187, dated 04.09.1993. This impression appears to have been gathered from the following passage in the G.O.
The Government after careful consideration hereby accept the proposal of Managing Director, Non-Conventional Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited to upgrade the Two (2) posts of Senior Stenographers, out of the existing 4 (Four) posts to the category of Special Category Stenographers in the Scale of Rs. 1535-2630 (Revised Scale of 1936).
It needs to be mentioned here that the expression ''Senior Stenographer'' occurring in this paragraph was employed to refer to two of the senior most Stenographers, from out of the existing four incumbents, who are working as Stenographers. By no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that the G.O. was dealing with the posts of Senior Stenographers. At the cost of repetition, it has to be noted that the post of Senior Stenographer came into existence in the 2nd respondent only with effect from 26.12.1994. The fact that the petitioner was functioning as Special Category Stenographer by that time, does not clothe him with the status of the Senior Stenographer, in the absence of any specific order and such an order came to be issued only on 21.02.1995.
It is not in dispute that the posts of Senior Assistant/senior Stenographer are treated on par with each other, and the same constitutes feeder category for the post of Assistant Manager. The petitioner, no doubt, was recognized as Senior Stenographer, on the assumption that he was functioning as Senior Stenographer much prior to the 3rd respondent was promoted as Senior Assistant, through proceedings dated 21.02.1995. However, it ultimately emerged that both of them, got their entry into the common cadre of Senior Assistant/Senior Stenographer with effect from 21.02.1995, and the basis for determining the inter se seniority is the point of time at which they entered the feeder category for the common cadre of Senior Assistant/Senior Stenographer. It is a matter of record that that petitioner was appointed as Stenographer on 04.02.1985, whereas the 3rd respondent was appointed as office assistant on regular basis on 01.07.1981. Obviously, the 3rd respondent was to be treated as senior. Added to that, the ration of 2:1 between the Senior Assistant and Senior Stenographer was required to be maintained. On realizing that an anomaly, in this regard, had crept into the promotion to the post of Assistant Manager, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 30.05.2011, showing the 3rd respondent as senior to the petitioner. Consequential proceedings were issued on 06.06.2011 promoting the 3rd respondent as Manager.
this Court does not find any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.