PETITIONER: L. RAJAIAH Vs. RESPONDENT: INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION &STAMPS, HYDERABAD & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/02/1996 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J) CITATION: JT 1996 (3) 604 1996 SCALE (3)134 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellant was appointed as a Junior Assistant in
the Registration and Stamps Department in the Warangal
District of A.P. in 1978. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were
juniors to him as Junior Assistants. The appellant was
promoted temporarily as Senior Assistant on October 23,
1989. But when his seniors were reverted, he had given place
to them. In G.O.M.S. No.378 on March 30, 1991 two posts of
Senior Assistant were created and respondents No.4 and 5
were appointed to those posts but the appellant was not
considered and was thus denied the appointment.
Consequently, he filed an application in the Tribunal. The
Tribunal in the impugned order dated August 5. 1994 made in
O.A No.7580/92 while holding that the appellant was not
entitled to the promotion from the date on which his
immediate juniors were promoted, directed the respondents to
consider his case for promotion to the post of Senior
Assistant as per the rules and eligibility. Calling in
question the said orders this appeal by special leave has
been filed.
Shri A.D.N. Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant,
contended that stoppage of increment is not a penalty for
promotion. Under Rule 34(b)(ii) of the A.P. State &
Subordinate Service Rules if promotion is withheld as a
penalty, the appellant became ineligible only for promotion.
Stoppage of increment is not a penalty by way of promotion.
Under A.P. Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, various
types of penalties have been prescribed. Penalty by way of
promotion is one of the punishments imposed. Therefore, the
respondents cannot clearly the promotion to the appellant.
Though prima facie, the argument is plausible, it is
difficult to accept the same. Rule 34(b)(ii) itself clearly
indicates that promotion would be made on the basis of
seniority-cum-fitness. The Rule reads as under:
“Promotion to non-selection
category or grade notwithstanding
anything contained in Special Ad
hoc rules and promotions to Non-
section category or grade shall
subject to the provisions of Rule
16, may be made in accordance with
the seniority-cum-fitness unless
Promotion of a member has been
withheld as a penalty.”
A reading clearly clearly indicates that
notwithstanding anything contained in special ad hoc rules,
all promotions to non-selection category or grade shall,
subject to the provisions of Rule 16, may be made in
accordance with seniority-cum-fitness unless promotion of a
Member has been withheld as a penalty. Though due to
stoppage of increment, he is not ineligible for
consideration for promotion, he is otherwise entitled to be
considered in accordance with the Rules, namely, seniority
cum-fitness. However, when seniority-cum-fitness is the
criteria, the imposition of the penalties for one year on
1.3.1988 and in another enquiry, stoppage of increment for
five years from 1.3.1988 i.e., till 28.2.1994, disentitled
him to be considered; so he did not regain fitness for
consideration for promotion as he was under disability
undergoing punishment. Consequently, when the promotion to
the post of Senior Assistant is on the basis of merit and
ability under special rules, fitness is one of the
considerations for the purpose. Since he was undergoing
punishment during the relevant period, he is not eligible
for consideration for promotion. Therefore, his juniors have
stolen march over the appellant as Senior Assistants, He
cannot thereby have any grievance. However he is entitled to
be considered for promotion according to rules after March
1,1994.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
