A.D.V.Reddy, J. - (1.) This appeal is by the unsuccessful petitioners in writ petition No.' 2847 of 1967.
(2.) The dispute relates to the promotions of respondents 4 to 10 as Superintendents an Panchayat Raj Department/Ministerial service, the promotions are challenged on the ground that respondents 4 to 10 who were unqualified were promoted in preference to the petitioners who had the requisite qualifications.
(3.) By G.O. Ms. No. 1080-GAD-(Spl.), dated 25th July, 1962, there was a reorganisation of Panchayathiraj set up on the State and district levels resulting in the abolition of the office of the Commissioner of Panchayathiraj at State level and three offices of the Deputy Commissioners at regional level with effect from 1st August, 1962, delegating most of the powers to the Collectors to bring them in close contact with the administration of Panchayathiraj institutions. To ensure efficiency in the offices of the said Panchayatiraj institutions, posts of superintendents had been created and four of the superintendents available in the office of the former Commissioner Panchayathiraj were allocated to the offices of the District Panchayat Officers at Guntur, Kistna, East Godavari and West Godavari districts and 16 more posts had to be sanctioned under G.O. Ms. No. 1193, Panchayathiraj, dated 21st November, 1964. Nine of these posts related to the offices of the District Parchayat Officers in Telangana area. According to rule 30 (b) of the Andhra Ministerial Service Rules read with Annexure IV thereto passing of the Accounts Test for subordinate Officers Part-I is a prerequisite qualification for the promotion to the categories of Upper Division Clerks and Superintendents of some departments. As the Panchayathiraj department did not find a place in the relevant Rules of the Ministerial Service Rules, the Government by G.O. Ms. No. 959, Panchayathiraj, dated 8th September, 1965 directed that the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I, be prescribed for the purpose of promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerks and the Superintendents there also. But by the same order, the Government directed that the promotions shall be temporary pending passing of the test within a period of two years from the date of the order, in terms of the provisions of general rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules and also exempted those who had attained the age of 45 years or more on the date of the order from passing the above test. Out of the nine posts in the Telangana area, two were filled up otherwise and seven had to be filled up by promotion. A panel for promotion had to be prepared from among the Upper Division Clerks then working. Earlier as there was a dearth of qualified candidates for the promotion to the category of Upper Division Clerks, the Government permitted the Inspector General of Local Administration to make appointments on temporary basis from retrenched personnel belonging to the offices of heads of departments and also persons working in the local bodies, preference however being given to the employees of local bodies. But those appointments were made purely on a temporary basis under section (sic) 10 (1) of the State Subordinate Service Rules. In the panel that had to be prepared for the promotion as Superintendents, the case of Upper Division Clerks working in the department and of those drafted from the local bodies were all considered and as the Government was proposing to regularise the services of those who had come from the local bodies, a panel for promotion was prepared taking their past service into consideration. Out of the panel respondents 4 to 7 who were employees of the local bodies and drafted into the State service and who were working as Extension Officers who were included in the panel were promoted under section 37 (a) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules and Superintendents though they were not regular Upper Division Clerks belonging to the State service Subsequently respondents 8 to 10 who were also dratted from the local bodies were similarly promoted under the same rules. These respondents were not qualified for such promotion as they had not then passed the accounts test prescribed for such promotion but they were given two years time for passing the required test. The writ petitioners who were all regular Upper Division Clerks working in the State Service and who had also qualified themselves by passing the test prescribed were not included in the panel and were not promoted. Hence the petition by them.;