B. Lakshmaiah, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its Principle

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO W.P.No.30704 of 2017

ORDER

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for respondents 1 to 5.

It is the case of the petitioner that he is eligible to be appointed as Record Assistant as he possessed B.Sc., M.A., and accordingly, he was appointed as Record Assistant and joined in the 6th respondent-School, which is an aided school. On the basis of the said qualification, he is also entitled for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. He submitted an application on 24.07.2017 seeking promotion. But, his case was not considered. It is stated that in August, 2017, the 5th respondent sent proposals to the 4th respondent recommending to promote the candidates to various posts including the post of Junior Assistant. In the said proposals, two sanctioned posts of Junior Assistants were shown, but in the last column of the table, it was shown that there is only one post. While giving information with regard to the persons working and those eligible to the next higher post, the names of the petitioner and his senior were shown. But when the case of the petitioner was not considered as Junior Assistant, the present writ petition is filed.

The grievance of the petitioner is that though there are two sanctioned posts and he was eligible for promotion, his case was ignored.

When one post of Junior Assistant was filled up by following seniority, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. Vacancy of another post to which the petitioner seeks promotion has arisen in the month of August, 2017 and the school sought permission to effect promotions to different posts such as Head Master, Social Assistant, Craft, and Junior Assistant and the name of one Murali Krishna was proposed against the post of Junior Assistant. Admittedly, the said Murali Krishna is senior to the petitioner. The entire writ petition is based on the sanctioned strength of two Junior Assistants. As per norms, the school was eligible for one post. The said one post was filled up by the person, who is senior to the petitioner.

In view of the same, this Court sees no ground to entertain the present writ petition. However, as and when another post of Junior Assistant is sought to be filled up, the case of the petitioner shall be considered.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO 7th November, 2017 rkk