N RAMAKRISHNA Vs. SPORTS AUTHORITY OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1992-12-23
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 30,1992

N.RAMAKRISHNA, BASKET BALL COACH, DIST.SPORTS AUTHORITY, ELURU Appellant
VERSUS
SPORTS AUTHORITY OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS VICE-CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HYDERABAD Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF PUNJAB VS. GURNAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
G P DOVAL VS. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF U P [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (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 mandamas.
(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. Subsequenl . he was promoted as Grade-II Coach on 10-4-1975 and onhis 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 7 1/2 years of service as a Grade-II Coach, he is entitled to be promoted as a Grade-1 Coach and as he completed 7 1/2 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 case, 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, emong all the Coaches working in the State and in spite of his buinga Post-Graduate both in Arts and Physical Education and his considerable achievements as a Coach, promotion was denied to him with out even considering his 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.l.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 Arts 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.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.