Once Services Are Regularized, Its Delayed Execution Causes Violation Of Article 14 Of Being Considered For Promotion: Telangana HC
Finding that the Petitioners had been deprived of their Fundamental Right of Equality before the Law and equal protection of the Laws extended by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Telangana High Court held that the action of Respondent in not regularizing the services of the petitioners in the feeder post of Dy. Superintendent (Audit) from the date of their initial promotion, is manifestly arbitrary.
The Bench of Justice Surepalli Nanda held that "even though Petitioner’s services had been regularized w.e.f. June 17, 2011, the same had been delayed since 2009 and hence resulted in violation of Petitioners Fundamental Rights of being considered for promotion at the right time".
Advocate A. G. Satyanarayana Rao appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate H. Venugopal appeared for the Respondent.
In a nutshell, the present petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Mandamus to declare the office order No. E3/255(25)/2011-KRZ of the third respondent to the extent of not regularizing the petitioners' services in the feeder post of Dy. Superintendent (Audit) from the date of their initial promotion under Reg.30 of APSRTC Employees (Retirement) Regulation, 1966 from 2009 as unjust, illegal, and contrary to APSRTC Employees (Retirement) Regulation, 1966 and contrary to Circular No. PD-47/2010 dated Sep 09, 2010. The petitioner also sought direction from the respondents to treat the date of regular promotion of the petitioners to the post of Dy. Superintendent (Audit) with effect from June 2010 when the petitioners have become eligible for such promotion.
After considering the submissions, the High Court found from a bare perusal of the content of letter No.SA1/255(21)/09-PO.III, dated Mar 03, 2009 of the Personal Officer-III addressed to the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar Zone, that the competent authority has accorded permission to regularize the existing 7 SA (Audit) from the date of their promotion under Regulation 30 since they were all selected by the Selection Committee and consider them for promotion as Dy. Superintendent (Audit) against the vacancies of Dy. Superintendent (Audit) and Superintendent (Audit) as a one-time measure to overcome the shortage of Audit Supervisors.
“Accordingly, as per the said letter the petitioners are promoted under Regulation 30 of APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 as against the sanctions of Superintendent (Audit) and Deputy Superintendent (Audit) in Karimnagar Zone and accordingly the petitioners had been promoted under Regulation 30 of APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966”, added the Court.
The Court observed that the first petitioner's probation has been declared w.e.f. Jan 29, 2005 in the post of Senior Assistant (Audit) as having completed the probation period satisfactorily and further vide proceedings of the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Karimnagar Zone, the petitioners are promoted as Deputy Superintendent (Audit) under Regulation No.30 of APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 on an emergency basis in the scale of Rs.6110-190-8390-210-10070-225-12770-240-15170.
“Further, vide proceedings on the recommendations of Departmental Selection Committee dated June 16, 2011, the petitioners are promoted as Deputy Superintendent (Audit) as per APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966”, added the Single Judge.
Taking support from the decision of the Apex Court in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Others, (1991) 2 SCC 295, wherein Justice K. Ramaswamy has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, Justice Nanda opined that the regularisation of the services of the Petitioners had been delayed and in view of the fact that the Selection Committee had been convened only on June 16, 2011 and the Petitioners were regularized w.e.f. June 17, 2011, the Petitioners were denied regular promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent (Audit) w.e.f. June 04, 2009.
The High Court, therefore, directed the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's representation in accordance with the law as per the letter of the Director (Vigilance and Security) and pass appropriate orders.
Cause Title: K. Manohar Rao and Anr v. TSRTC and Ors.