- (1.) These Writ Petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1949 are filed by similarly situated petitioners, excluding the petitioner in W.P. No.25992 of 2014, to issue a writ of mandamus challenging the inaction of the respondents in promoting the petitioners, who are working as Assistant Executive Engineers, as Deputy Executive Engineers and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner in W.P. No.25992 of 2014 challenges the inaction of the respondents in promoting the petitioner against the vacancies earmarked for Assistant Executive Engineer, who belong to schedule caste community i.e., Roaster Point No.7, in Multi Zone -I as illegal, discriminatory and review the D.P.C. proceedings held on 24.02.2014.
(2.) The plea of the petitioners and the respondents in all these writ petitions is one and the same except to the extent of claiming reservation in promotion by the petitioner in W.P. No.25992 of 2014. Hence, all these matters are being decided by common discussion.
(3.) The petitioners are working as in -charge Assistant Executive Engineers in the 1st respondent -Corporation more or less from 1986 onwards and they were appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers in a substantive vacancy on regular basis more or less from 1998 on wards. The petitioners, initially, were appointed as Technical Work Inspectors Grade -II; subsequently, they were converted as Technical Work Inspectors Grade -I. During course of their employment, all the petitioners acquired B.Tech., qualification and, hence, entitled for promotion as Assistant Executive Engineers as per Rule 3 of the A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation Employees Service Rules, 2013 (for short, 'the Service Rules'). Though the petitioners were appointed as Work Inspectors Grade -I and put up the required service for their promotion, they were placed as in -charge Assistant Executive Engineers on 17.08.1998 and worked as such till 21.01.2014 i.e., till they were appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers on regular basis against substantive vacancy. As per the Service Rules, the post of Deputy Executive Engineer shall be filled up by promotion from the Assistant Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers in the ratio of 3:1. Similarly, as per the Service Rules, the Work Inspectors Grade -I, having minimum qualification with 10 years service with graduation in B.Tech./B.E. are eligible for promotion by transfer as Assistant Executive Engineers, of course in the event of non availability of Assistant Engineers with Graduation/Draughtsman with graduation. Similarly, the Work Inspectors Grade -I who are having 10 years experience with Diploma (Civil Engineering) are eligible for appointment by transfer to the post of Assistant Engineers. Therefore, as per the Service Rules, the Work Inspectors Grade -I possessing Diploma (Civil Engineering) qualification are eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers and the Work Inspectors Grade -I possessing B.Tech./B.E. qualification are eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers. Since the petitioners possessed required qualification and experience as Work Inspectors Grade -I, they were promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers on 22.01.2014. Prior to their appointment against substantive vacancy, while the petitioners were working as Work Inspectors Grade -I, they were placed as in -charge Assistant Executive Engineers till 21.01.2014 i.e., more than the prescribed period of 10 years and thereby gained experience as Assistant Executive Engineers. After framing of Service Rules by the Government, the 1st respondent would have appointed the petitioners as Deputy Executive Engineers on promotion, treating the experience they gained as in -charge Assistant Executive Engineers, but when the 1st respondent made adhoc promotions prior to framing of Service Rules in 2013, it is legal and constitutional obligation of the 1st respondent to regulate and review all appointments and promotions or transfers as per the Service Rules but the 1st respondent did not review the appointments and promotions even after framing of the Rules and denied promotions to the petitioners on the ground that they did not possess requisite qualifications i.e., experience in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineers on the date of making the representation dated 28.03.2014 and denied promotions.;