ORDER
Jagannadha Raju, J.
1. This writ petition is filed by a Basket Ball Coach Grade-II claiming that he should have been promoted as Grade-I Coach with effect from 9-10-1980 when he became eligible for promotion or atleast with effect from 1-7-1982 when his juniors were promoted as Grade-I Coaches. He prayed for a writ of (sic).
2. The facts pertinent for decision of this writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner was appointed as a Grade-III Coach on 2-3-1970. Subsequent he was promoted as Grade-II Coach on 10-4-1975 and on his representation that he is eligible to be promoted as per Rules from 10-4-1973 his claim was conceded and was given retrospective promotion with effect from 10-4-1973 granting him monetary benefit only from 1-7-1978. He claims that under the Rules, after completing 71/2 years of service as a Grade-II Coach, he is entitled to be promoted as a Grade-I Coach and as he completed 71/2 years of service as a Grade-II Coach by 10-10-1980, he should have been promoted from that date. He claims that four of his juniors viz., (1) G. Gopichand, (2) K. Venkat Rao, (3) A. Jayakar and (4) Salam, have been promoted as Grade-I Coaches on 9-7-1982 to the time scale 1300-50-1600-60-1900. He claims that from 1982 onwards, he has been making repeated representations, but none of them evoked any response and finding that no response was forthcoming from the respondent, ultimately he gave the last representation dated 9-5-1991 wherein he clearly informed the respondent that in cast, he does not get any reply within fifteen days, he will assume that he is permitted to approach a court of law for redressal of his grievance. As no reply was given to him either accepting or rejecting the representation dated 9-5-91 he filed the present writ petition on 15-6-1991.
3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is the most qualified person among all the Coaches working in the State and in spite of his being a Post-Graduate both in Articles and Physical Education and his considerable achievements as a Coach, promotion was denied to him without even considering he claims. At the same time, several persons who are juniors to him have been promoted, though many of them do not possess the requisite qualifications. The petitioner also claims that he got a certificate as an N.I.S. Coach. It is claimed for the petitioner that at the time of his initial appointment, he was a Degree-holder i.e., Bachelor of Physical Education from Jiyaji University which is treated by the Government of India and the University Grants Commission as a Post-Graduate Diploma in Physical Education which is equivalent to B.A./ B.Com./B.Sc. + Post Graduate Diploma in Physical Education. He also underwent training as an N.I.S. (National Institute of Sports) Coach from January, 1969 to May, 1969. On the date of appointment he was fully qualified for the post of the Coach. Subsequently, in the year 1982, he obtained his Masters Degree in Articles from Ranchi University and he obtained Masters Degree in Physical Education from Jiyaji University in 1985-87. It is most unjust to deny promotion to the petitioner when several of the persons who are his juniors were promoted in July, 1982. The Rules nowhere contemplated promotions being given on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. The principle for promotion is, seniority-cum-merit. The petitioner is certainly entitled to the relief asked for.
4. The writ petition is resisted on the ground that the petitioner was not qualified for appointment as a Coach and he was appointed not as Grade-III Coach but as a Junior Coach, on 2-3-1970. It is also claimed that the petitioner kept quite from July, 1982 to 1991 and hence the writ petition asking for retrospective promotion from July, 1982 is not maintainable on the ground of laches. Promotion to Grade-I Coach is based upon merit-cum-efficiency and it is not governed by seniority alone. In the entire writ petition, there are no allegations to the effect that promotion was denied for the petitioner for extraneous reasons or extraneous considerations and that promotions were given to the other four persons- Gopi Chand, K. Venkat Rao, A.Jayakar and Salam on extraneous considerations. The petitioner did not exhibit extraordinary merit which the abovesaid four Coaches had exhibited in their careers and hence, the petitioner cannot claim promotion as of right. The petitioner’s grievance is unjustified.
5. In view of the contention raised that the petitioner was not qualified for appointment as Grade-III Coach and hence he was only appointed as a junior Coach and view of the further argument that the entire qualifications were acquired by the petitioner only subsequently while he was in service, the Court directed the petitioner to produce all his certificates and they were accordingly produced. On 2-3-1970 the date of his initial appointment as a Grade-III Coach, the certificates disclose that he passed XIIth Class compartmentally in 1964, he obtained the Bachelor Degree in Physical Education from Jiyaji University in 1968 and he also obtained the N.I.S. Coach certificate having undergone 4½ months’ Course from January, 1969 to May, 1969. Though the original order of appointment dated 2-3-1970 issued by the A.P. Sports Council describes the petitioner as junior Coach, the order actually mentions Mr. S. Shamshuddin and Mr.N. Ramakrishna, the petitioner as Coaches for Basket Ball and against the name of N. Ramakrishna, in brackets ‘Junior Coach’ is indicated. The scale of pay is indicated as 250-10-350-Efficiency Bar-15-500. Subsequently, by order dated 30th March, 1970, the present petitioner was appointed as full time Coach and the order clearly mentions that he is N.I.S. qualified. There is nothing to indicate that he was appointed as a Junior Coach. In the subsequent orders, he and other persons appointed by the orders dated 2-3-1970 and 30-3-1970 were treated on the same footing and they were promoted from Grade-III Coaches to Grade-II Coaches. It is clear from the order dated 17-1-1976. This order clearly indicates that the petitioner was promoted as Grade-II Coach with effect from 10-4-1975. Subsequently, on his representation and representations of other persons, order dated 28-7-1978 was issued wherein proceedings were issued regarding promotion of 28 Coaches from Grade-III to Grade-II and the present petitioner was given promotion with effect from 10-4-1973 on which date, he completed three years’ service as Grade-III Coach. As the order granted monetary benefits from 1-7-1978, his salary was fixed as a Grade II Coach at Rs. 770-00.
6. If we carefully scrutinise the order dated 28-7-1978, we find that while the petitioner was promoted with effect from 10-4-1973, the order persons are shown as his juniors. Sri G. Gopichand was also promoted with effect from 10-4-1973, but he is shown at serial Nd.3 while petitioner is shown at serial No. 2. Sri K. Venkat Rao is promoted with effect from 8-10-1974 and he is shown at serial No. 17. Sri A. Jayakar is promoted with effect from 21-10-1974 and he is shown at serial No. 23. Thus, there is no doubt about the fact that Gopichand, Venkat Rao and Jayakar are admittedly juniors to him as Grade-II Coaches. After he entered service, the petitioner appears to have improved his qualifications and acquired the Degrees of Master of Articles from Ranchi University in 1982 and Master of Physical Education from Jiyaji University, Gwalior in 1985-87.
7. It is now claimed in the counter filed on behalf of the respondent that G. Gopichand, Venkat Rao, Jayakar and Salam were promoted because of their outstanding merit and achievements as Coaches in different fields. It is claimed that all these persons are persons possessing the qualification of regular course of the N.I.S. extending for a period of one year. Sri G. Gopichand was promoted and granted two incentive increments in recognition of his valuable services of coaching persons for the State Junior and Mini Volleyball Teams which won the Junior National Championship of 1975 and as he was the then Coach for the Women Team which toured Sri Lanka in June, 1982 and as he has coached number of Teams from 1975 to 1981. He was also the Coach for the Indian Team for the IX Asian Games. Hence, he is a man of outstanding ability and achievements. Similarly, it is claimed that Sri K. Venkat Rao has done phenomenal work as a Coach in Gymnastics and trained several National and Inter-University level gymnastes -both boys and girls and he was also an important functionary in the IX Asian Games for assisting organisation of the gymnastics. He has also organised National and Inter-national University Meets. It is claimed that Sri A. Jayakar is a member of the Indian Contingent for the Xth World Youth Festival at East Berlin and he was being used as Regional Sports Officer-cum-Public Relations Officer and though he is a qualified Coach in Table Tennis, he has done commendable work in organising exhibition matches of Kabaddi and Kho-Kho in the Berlin Festival. He was Convenor of the Talent Proficiency Test to select All India Teams and he served as Officer on Special-duty for the IX Asian Games. Hence his achievements are of outstanding nature and accordingly, he was promoted as Grade-I Coach. It is claimed that Sri Salam is a former Olympian and he produced various players who participated in International Tournments and in recognition of the meritorious service rendered by him in training the Indian Yeuth Football Team which was declared as Joint Winners along with Iran in the Asian Football Championship Trophy, he was promoted as Grade-I Coach. Except stating in the counter that the present petitioner was awarded a censure by proceedings dated 7-9-1989, nothing adverse is stated against the petitioner. It should be remembered that awarding of a censure, does not in any way militate against a promotion. If we are to compare the merits of the persons who were promoted and the achievements of the petitioner, we find that the petitioner has also distinguished himself as a Coach. In his representation dated 22-11-1984 made to the respondent, he had given the details of his achievements as a Basketball Coach. He was a Coach for the A.P. Rural Basketball Team for three years and the A.P. Rural Basketball Team secured silver trophies in two All India Tournments and Bronze trophy in one Tournment. He was also Coach for the A.P. Boys Team for the open Nationals for four years. He was Specialist Instructor in the S.R.R. College of Physical Education, Gopannapalem and he was selected as Basketball Coach by the A.P. Sports Council in 1970. Several of his disciples represented the State in the Nationals, Inter-University Tournments and State level Tournments. One of his disciples G. Chinna Reddy was selected to represent India in the Youth Meet at Bangkok. Mr. G. Amareswar got selected to represent Indian boys Team in all the three tests against visiting Srilanka team. Several of the girls coached by him participated in the All India Womens Festival at Delhi and in various national Tournments. He himself represented Andhra Pradesh in the Boys section of the National Championship from 1960 to 1964 and he represented the University and the Madhya Pradesh State in Basketball, represented Andhra Pradesh in the Men’s Nationals at Kottayam. He has given the list of various Boys and Girls who underwent coaching under him and who represented in different Tournaments at the National level, at the State level and at the Inter-University level. Thus, it can be seen that the petitioner is also a man with tremendous achievements as a Coach in Basketball. He cannot in any way be said to be inferior to the four persons who are his juniors and who have been promoted. During the course of arguments, he has produced a sheet of paper indicating his organising abilities and his work as an Organizer of sports. This shows that he was associated with organising sports at various levels. Thus it can be said that the petitioner is equally meritorious and he is no way inferior to any of the four juniors who were promoted as Grade-I Coaches.
8. It is the claim of the respondent that till this day, no specific Rules have been framed by the A.P. Sports Council regarding service conditions and promotions of Coaches. But in general, it is claimed that they are following the National Institute of Sports Rules for promotions and that the Andhra Pradesh Sports Council also resolved in 1977 that uniform rules for promotion of Coaches with particular number of years of service should be prescribed, as no uniformity was being followed earlier and achievements in the field of coaching, involvement of the Coach in organising the sports activities, involving the youth in sports, physical fitness of the Coach and confidential reports received from the District Sports Council would be the criteria. The counter nowhere mentions why no meetings of the Committee took place for consideration of the candidates for promotion though several years have elapsed after the various Coaches have been promoted as Grade-II Coaches in 1973-75. The counter nowhere mentions when exactly the Sports Council decided to promote Sri G. Gopichand, K. Venkat Rao, A. Jayakar and Salam and on what criteria they were promoted. The counter nowhere mentions that the claims of other eligible Coaches were also considered for promotion and as to why the four juniors were preferred. In fact Sealing about the rule position, in page 5 of the counter, the respondent categorically admitted that persons are being promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-efficiency. This means, that a person who has the requisite seniority and whose services are satisfactory are bound to be promoted. The respondent nowhere claimed that the promotions are made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority.
9. In this context, it would be pertinent to mention that in another Writ Petition No. 5840/90, I had to deal with the claim of a person for promotion as Grade-II Coach of the A.P. Sports Council and in the judgment dated 23rd October, 1991 this Court had observed as follows:
“……… Paragraph No. 2 clearly shows that besides adhering to NIS promotion rules, the Council resolved that in future to take into consideration the merit at the time of considering people for promotion. The very same paragraph indicates that the quantum of merit was not fixed. One fails to understand what the Council meant by this resolution. If no criteria for assessing merit is fixed, I am unable to understand how they can say what merit should be taken into consideration. They have nowhere declared that promotion from Grade-III Coach to Grade-II Coach is based upon merit-cum-seniority nor did they mentions that it is based upon seniority-cum-merit. The way in which the promotions were given for 28 people clearly indicates that they treated the post as time-scale promotion and granted promotion with effect from the completion of three years of service as Grade-III Coach.
……Judged from whatever angle the petitioner is certainly entitled to parity of treatment with the other Grade-III Coaches who were promoted on 28-7-1978 and also entitled to have parity of treatment with Sri J.V. Suryanarayana (Petitioner in W.P. No. 2023/86).”
10. The observations in that judgment aptly apply to the facts of the present case also. Considering the fact that till this day no specific Rules have been framed by the respondent regarding promotions and considering the fact that it is not the stand of the respondent that promotions are based upon merit-cum-seniority principle, but they are based upon seniority-cum-efficiency principle, the claim of the petitioner cannot be denied.
11. The further question that remains to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim promotion with retrospective effect from July, 1982 on which date, his four juniors were promoted.
12. A very strenuous argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that his continuous representations and the inaction of the respondent in not sending any reply to the various representations, clearly indicates that the petitioner was agitating from the very beginning and hence the petitioner cannot be blamed for any laches. Reliance is placed upon State of Punjab and Anr. v. Gurnam Singh, 1991 (1) SLR 411. In that decision, the Division Bench observed in paragraph 4 as follows:
“……As far as the laches were concerned the learned single Judge held that the making of the representation by the petitioner had been admitted by the State, but it had been averred that the same had been rejected on 17th December, 1976, but there was no averment that the rejection had been communicated to the writ petitioner. On this ground, the plea of laches was negatived.”
In the same decision, it was further observed in paragraph 6 as follows:
“……..We find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. As far as the laches are concerned, it has been rightly held by the learned single Judge that the rejection of the representation was never communicated to the petitioner, and, therefore, the petitioner could justifiably wait to get an answer from the respondent.”
13. The learned counsel also relied upon G.P. Doval and Ors. v. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. and Ors., wherein provisional seniority list drawn in March, 1971 was questioned by way of a writ petition filed in the year 1983. Dealing with such a situation, the court observed as follows:
“…..Provisional seniority list was not finalised for a period of 12 years and they were operating on the basis of provisional seniority list without finalisation and hence, the delay of 12 years cannot be treated as laches on the part of the petitioner.”
In my considered opinion that decision deals with different matrix of facts and the principle laid down in that decision is not applicable to the facts of this case.
In the present case, as could be seen from the representation given by the petitioner on 9-5-1991, it is quite clear that earlier, he had given 11 representations, but the respondent has not indicated as to what they have done with regard to these representations. Only in the last representation dated 9-3-1991, he categorically mentioned that his promotion may be considered and if his promotion is not considered, he may be permitted to approach a court of law for redressal of his grievance. He also indicated that if no reply is given within 15 days’ time, he would take it that permission has been accorded to him. In the back-ground of the numerous representations given by the petitioner, it cannot be said that there are any laches on the part of the petitioner.
14. Compared to the merits of the four candidates who were promoted in July, 1982, the petitioner cannot claim equal stature or achievements with those four outstanding Coaches who were promoted in 1982. Considering the fact that the petitioner was not lacking in efficiency or organising ability and considering the fact that he has improved his qualifications by subsequently acquiring M.A. and M.P.E. degrees, I feel that he should be treated as a person who was fully eligible for promotion after he acquired the academic distinctions. In this view of the matter, after the petitioner secured the M.P.E. degree in December, 1987, he should be treated on par with the other juniors and hence, I allow the writ petition and direct the respondent to promote him as Grade-I Coach with retrospective effect from 10-4-1988. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs.