HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 27634 OF 2010 Between: The Superintending Engineer N.S.L.C & O.M Circle, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District and two others ………….Petitioners AND M. Krishna Murthy, Junior Assistant, NSC and two others ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of the Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders dated 30.10.2009 passed in O.A.No. 7082 of 2006 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same, as illegal. O.A.No. 7082 of 2006 was filed by the respondents-applicants herein challenging the proceedings dated 2011.2004 of the first respondent therein as they are contrary to the orders in R.P.No. 5938 of 1988 dated 17.1.1995 and orders in O.A.No. 5814 of 1999 dated 14.9.2004 and consequently direct the respondents therein to grant the notional seniority to the applicants in the category of Junior Assistants with effect from 31.3.1987. That O.A was allowed directing the respondents-Government therein to count the seniority of the applicant from the date of their initial appointment for the purpose of preparation of seniority list in the cadre of Junior Assistants and as the juniors were promoted earlier to the applicants, the applicants are entitled for notional seniority from the date of appointment of their juniors with all consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants- respondents were initially appointed as attenders in the year 1977 in N.S.C. Circle, Kallur, Khammam District. It is stated that they were subsequently transferred to N.S.L.C Circle, Miryalaguda. The Chief Engineer, NSP, Tekulapally, Khammam District on the repeated correspondence had informed that the detaching of Divisions from one Circle and attaching to another is for administrative necessity and such transfers are to be treated as, on administrative grounds. It is stated that the Superintendent Engineer, Miryalaguda, prepared a provisional seniority list of the cadres including attenders on 25.5.1985 and according to the said list, the applicants were shown at Sl.No. 108 and 109 respectively and whereas, the juniors to the applicants were shown at 127 and 128 and the Superintending Engineer, NSLC-first petitioner also prepared a seniority list of attenders as on 29.2.1998 in respect of NSC Circle, Miryalaguda and according to that applicant- respondent No. 1 shown at Sl.No. 105 and applicant- respondent No. 2 was shown at Sl.No. 106 and their juniors were shown on places at Sl.No. 94 and Sl.No. 95. Questioning the same, respondents-applicants filed R.P.No. 5938 of 1988 and the same was disposed of on 17.1.1995 directing the respondents therein to consider the claims of the applicants while filling up of the posts of Junior Assistant. Subsequently the applicants- respondents were appointed as Junior Assistants on 22.7.1995 by the first petitioner and after that they filed a representation before the first respondent to consider their cases for notional promotion as their juniors were promoted as Junior Assistants in March 1987 and as per G.O.Ms No. 354 dated 10.5.1990 the appointment by transfer from attenders to Junior Assistants were considered notionally on par with their juniors and the same was rejected on 5.8.1996. Aggrieved by the same, applicants-respondents filed O.A.No. 5814 of 1999 challenging the orders dated 5.8.1996 on the ground that the rejection of their claim for fixation of seniority over and above their juniors is contrary to law and the Tribunal passed orders on 14.9.2004 in favour of the applicants-respondents. After that the first petitioner issued the impugned Memo dated 20.11.2004 rejecting the claim and hence, they preferred O.A. The learned Government Pleader for Services-II submits that the respondents 1 and2 belong to the Khammam District by virtue of Nativity and studied up to SSC and allotted to Khammam District by the Chief Engineer, Nagarjuna Sagar Project, Hill Colony on options exercised by them and their seniority has been taken and maintained in the seniority list of Attenders belonging to the local cadre of Khammam District under Zone V as per Presidential order on Six Point Formula and communicated to all the concerned including the petitioners vide memo dated 20.11.1992. He also submits that the order of the Tribunal is perverse as it had failed to take into account the fact that as on the date of request of the respondents 1 and 2 for conversion from Attender to Junior Assistant in Zone VI, there were no vacancies of Junior Assistants in Zone VI and when there were no vacancies, the question of acceding their request does not arise. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has drawn our attention to Rule 35(a) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules with regard to fixation of seniority in the case of transfers on request or on administrative grounds, which reads thus: “35(a): The Seniority of a member of a service, class or category transferred from one unit of appointment to another unit of appointment, on administrative grounds, shall be, determined with reference to the date of seniority of such member in the former unit.” Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II and also learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, the respondents did not request the department to transfer them but on administrative grounds candidates will be transferred from one circle to another and their seniority will be counted from the date of initial appointment. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly observed that the respondents are directed to count the seniority of the respondents from the date of their initial appointment for the purpose of preparation of seniority list in the cadre of Junior Assistants and as the juniors were promoted earlier to the respondents, the respondents are entitled for notional seniority from the date of appointment of their juniors with all consequential benefits. Hence, we see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J DATE: 16.11.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.