Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

B. Ashok Kumar Vs. Board of Intermediate Education Rep. by Its Vice Chairman and Prl. Secretary to Higher Education, Govt. of A.P. and anr.

B. Ashok Kumar vs Board of Intermediate Education Rep. by Its Vice Chairman and Prl. Secretary to Higher Education, Go

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Apr 19, 2008
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/432628

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition No. 8642 of 2008
Subject
Service
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ - Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained ...

Key legal issue
Service
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

B. Ashok Kumar

Advocate C. Srinivasa Baba, Adv.

Respondent

Board of Intermediate Education Rep. by Its Vice Chairman and Prl. Secretary to Higher Education, Go

Advocate Kumari C. Sindhu Kumari, SC

Legal References

Reported In
2008(4)ALD521; 2008(4)ALT12

Excerpt

.....in such a case, maxim, expressum facit cessare tacitum (when there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. section 7: [v.v.s. rao, n.v. ramana & p.s. narayana, jj] levy of market fee element of quid pro quo - held, levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of sttaes taxing power. there is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. it is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified. expressum facit cessare tacitum sections 4 & 3: [v.v.s. rao, n.v. ramana & p.s. narayana, jj] meaning when there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded. - the very fact that two deputy secretaries, who are seniors to the petitioner, were promoted on 08-08-2007, discloses that the 1st respondent did take into account the exigency of service, as well as number of available vacancies for effecting promotions to the posts of joint secretaries......and d. jagannadham, who are seniors to the petitioner, were promoted. hardly within two months thereafter, the petitioner retired from service.5. it is urged that the other vacancies of joint secretaries were held by officials from other departments, on deputation. it is not alleged that such deputations came to be made against the vacancies, that have arisen after the petitioner acquired the eligibility for promotion. the very fact that two deputy secretaries, who are seniors to the petitioner, were promoted on 08-08-2007, discloses that the 1st respondent did take into account the exigency of service, as well as number of available vacancies for effecting promotions to the posts of joint secretaries. by the time, another vacancy became available, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service.6. an employee can seek the relief of notional promotion only when it is established that he was wrongfully denied promotion, and in his place a junior was promoted. it is from such date, that the employee is entitled to be promoted on notional basis. such a comparison becomes necessary because of the reason that no employee, howsoever senior he may be, cannot claim promotion as of right, even assuming that there existed clear vacancies. promotion has to be accepted by an employee, as and when it is accorded to him. notional dates become relevant only when a person junior to him was wrongfully promoted, ahead of him. the second eventuality is where the promotions are provided for, on completion of a particular length of service, by the incumbent, in the feeder category. none of the circumstances existed in the instant case.this court does not find any merits in the writ petition. the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. The petitioner was initially employed as L.D.C., in the Board of Intermediate Education, the 1st respondent, in the year 1972. Thereafter, he earned promotions as U.D.C., Office Superintendent, Administrative Officer, and ultimately as Deputy Secretary. The petitioner retired in the category of Deputy Secretary, on 31-10-2007, on attaining the age of superannuation. The grievance of the petitioner is that, he ought to have been promoted to the post of Regional Inspection Officer-cum-Joint Secretary, and complains that he was wrongfully denied the same. The petitioner seeks the relief of a direction to the respondents to give notional promotion to him, to the post of Joint Secretary.

2. Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the probation of all the four Deputy Secretaries, appointed in the year 2004, was declared on 28-06-2007, the respondents promoted only the first two candidates, namely, C. Nanda Kumar and D. Jagannadham, on 08-08-2007 to the posts of Joint Secretaries, in category-I. He contends that denial of promotion to the petitioner, particularly when there were vacancies; is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

3. Smt. C. Sindu Kumari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that even assuming that there existed vacancies, the petitioner cannot claim promotion, as of right. She contends that the question, as to whether an incumbent must be promoted to a higher post, would depend upon the exigency of service, apart from the incumbent holding the requisite qualifications. Her further contention is that the petitioner can claim notional promotion only when it is established that any Deputy Secretary junior to the petitioner was promoted, and that such is not the case here.

4. It is no doubt true that the petitioner and three others were promoted as Deputy Secretaries vide proceedings dated 31-07-2004, and the probation of all the four officers was declared on 28-06-2007. The petitioner figured at Sl. No. 3 in the list of four Deputy Secretaries. All of them submitted a representation on 13-07-2007 to the 1st respondent, with a request to promote them as Joint Secretaries. However, only two candidates, by name, C. Nanda Kumar and D. Jagannadham, who are seniors to the petitioner, were promoted. Hardly within two months thereafter, the petitioner retired from service.

5. It is urged that the other vacancies of Joint Secretaries were held by officials from other departments, on deputation. It is not alleged that such deputations came to be made against the vacancies, that have arisen after the petitioner acquired the eligibility for promotion. The very fact that two Deputy Secretaries, who are seniors to the petitioner, were promoted on 08-08-2007, discloses that the 1st respondent did take into account the exigency of service, as well as number of available vacancies for effecting promotions to the posts of Joint Secretaries. By the time, another vacancy became available, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service.

6. An employee can seek the relief of notional promotion only when it is established that he was wrongfully denied promotion, and in his place a junior was promoted. It is from such date, that the employee is entitled to be promoted on notional basis. Such a comparison becomes necessary because of the reason that no employee, howsoever senior he may be, cannot claim promotion as of right, even assuming that there existed clear vacancies. Promotion has to be accepted by an employee, as and when it is accorded to him. Notional dates become relevant only when a person junior to him was wrongfully promoted, ahead of him. The second eventuality is where the promotions are provided for, on completion of a particular length of service, by the incumbent, in the feeder category. None of the circumstances existed in the instant case.

This Court does not find any merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial