V. Kuncha Rao v. Viskha Port Trust Visakhapatnam And 6 ORS

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.12845 OF 2001 ORDER:

1.

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in O.O.No.E/95, dated 1.6.2001 issued by the official respondents for filling up the vacancies for the post of Quay Foreman by way of promotions to S.C. categories, depriving the promotion opportunities to the unreserved candidates, as illegal and arbitrary.

2.

Heard Smt. A. Padma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. V. Uma Devi, Sri K.P.V. Subba Reddy and K. Srinivasa Murty, learned Counsel for the respondents.

3.

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: The petitioner was appointed as tally clerk on 20.1.1977 in the traffic department of Visakhapatnam Port Trust and subsequently, he was promoted as an upgrade tally clerk in the year 1998 and again promoted as Assistant Quay Foreman in the month of February, 2001. Respondents Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 were appointed on 2.6.1977, 7.4.1977, 6.3.1980 and 8.5.1982 respectively under reserved scheduled caste quota, and after completion of probation period, they were promoted as upgrade tally clerks, assistant quay foreman and subsequently, adhoc promotion for the post of

Assistant Quay Foreman was regularized without following rule of reservation. The Visakhapatnam Port Trust has to follow the reservations of S.C/S.T/OBCs and as per the procedure in vogue 40 point roster system is to be maintained. However, the 2nd respondent is following the single point roster system, which is highly irregular. The promotions are being given only to the employees belonging to SC/ST categories without following the roster system. Vide the proceedings impugned, promotions were given to respondents Nos.4 to 7, who are juniors to the petitioner and who belonged to SC category, for the post of Quay Foreman. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the promotions were given to the juniors of the petitioner ignoring his seniority and without following rule of reservation properly. 5.

I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties. The petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 1.6.2001 where under certain promotions were given. A careful reading of the said proceedings would disclose that officiating arrangements were made with effect from 31.5.2001 purely on adhoc basis. It was made clear that such promotions, which were

made on officiating and adhoc basis, will not confer any right on the incumbents to claim regular promotions and seniority. When the proceedings dated 1.6.2001 clearly state that certain individuals were given officiating placements on adhoc basis, and such promotions would not confer any right to claim regular promotions and seniority, this Court is not in a position to understand the grievance of the petitioner. Except stating that the persons, who are juniors to him were promoted on adhoc basis, no attempt was made by the petitioner to place seniority list to demonstrate that the persons, who were promoted on adhoc basis, are juniors to him. 6.

Apart from that, one of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the persons at Serial No.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the proceedings impugned, who were promoted to the post of Quay Foreman, are all members belonging to SC community and they were promoted without following the roster system, whereas in the counter-affidavit, the official respondents contended that five persons shown in the proceedings dated 1.6.2001 are the members belonging to Scheduled Caste community and they were promoted as Assistant Quay Foreman way back in the year 1994 ahead of the petitioner and at any rate, they are not juniors to the petitioner. 7.

Having considered the rival contentions, this Court is of the view that if any of the juniors of the petitioner are promoted on

regular basis, then the right would accrue to claim promotion on par with the juniors. But the petitioner failed to demonstrate before this Court that the persons, to whom promotions were given, are juniors to him.

8.

In the above circumstances and in view of the fact that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, no relief can be granted to him based on the officiating promotions effected in respect of certain individuals vide impugned orders dated 01.06.2001 and more so when the petitioner has not filed seniority list to demonstrate that juniors to the petitioner are given officiating promotions.

9.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.

_____________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J Dated:27.07.2018 Nn

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.12845 OF 2001 27/07/2018 Nn.