THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3459 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring Memo No.SE/OP/NLG/ADM/U2/D.No.802/04, dated 08-07-2004, in refusing to reckon the petitioner’s seniority from the date of his initial appointment as typist with effect from 22-08-1989 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to reckon the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk (for short “the LDC”) with effect from 22-08-1989 i.e., initial appointment. It appears, the petitioner was appointed as Typist in the respondents’ organisation on 22-08-1989. Subsequently, he was converted as LDC. The provisional seniority list in the cadre of LDCs was prepared by the respondents on 12-01-1999, showing the name of the petitioner at Sl.No.137 reckoning his seniority from 02-07-1993 i.e., the date on which the petitioner was converted to the post of LDC. The petitioner submitted his objections to the said provisional list on 10-02-1999. Further, on 01-09-2003, another provisional seniority list was prepared placing the petitioner at Sl.No.83 reckoning his seniority with effect from 02-07-1993. The petitioner submitted his objections to the said provisional seniority list on 08-10-2003. In spite of the same, the respondents passed the impugned order, dated 08-07-2004, refusing to reckon the seniority of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment with effect from 22-08-1989. Hence, the present writ petition. Though no counter is filed, Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that prior to issuance of B.P.(P&G.Per).Ms.No.399, dated 07-01-1995, the Rules governing the service conditions of the employees are altogether different and the petitioner is not entitled to reckon the seniority from the date of his initial appointment as Typist with effect from 22-08-1989. For the purpose of reckoning seniority in the cadre of LDC., B.P. (P&G.Per).Ms.No.399, dated 07-01-1995, has no retrospective effect and therefore, it has no application to the case of the petitioner. Heard both sides. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a graduate and was initially appointed as Typist in the respondents’ organization on 22-08-1989 and later he was converted to the post of LDC. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the seniority lists were prepared by the respondents on 12-01-1999 and 01-09-2003 respectively in the cadre of LDCs, he objected for placing him at Sl.No.137 and 83 respectively reckoning his seniority from 02-07-1993 i.e., the date on which he was converted to the post of LDC. Learned counsel for the respondents however strenuously contended that the amended Regulations were issued in the year 1995 and the petitioner was converted prior to 1995 and, therefore, the said amended Regulations have no application to the case on hand. The said argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents cannot be accepted, as the said amendment is by way of substitution to the original Rules made thereunder. As per B.P. (P&G.Per).Ms.No.399, dated 07-01-1995, the A.P. State Electricity Board issued the following amendment to Andhra Pradesh State Service Electricity Board Service Regulations part-III issued in B.P.Ms.No.89, dated 02-02- 1970, published at pages 93-110 of Supplement to part-II of A.P.Gazette, dated 05-02-1970, and brought into force with effect from 04-03-70 in B.P.Ms.No.199, dated 04-03-1970, which reads as under:- “In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of Section-79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (Central Act LIV of 1948), the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board issues the following amendment to Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations Part-III issued in B.P.Ms.No.89, dated 02-02-1970 and published at pages 93- 110 of Supplement to part-II of A.P.Gazette dated 05-02-1970 and brought into force with effect from 04-03-70 in B.P.Ms.No.199, dated 4-3- 1970. AMENDMENT For Regulation 11 and the provisio there under of the said Regulations, the following shall be substituted newly, “In personal and General Service, approved probationers in the categories of Junior Assistant, Junior Asst. Cum-Computer Operator or Telephone Operator shall be eligible for appointment as Typist and Steno-Typist and Typist or Steno-Typist as Junior Assistant, Junior Assistant-cum-Computer Operator and Telephone Operator subject to possessing the requisite qualification for such appointment. Similarly in Accounts service the approved probationers in the category of L.D.C. shall be eligible for appointment as Typist or Steno-Typist and Typist or Steno-Typist as L.D.C. subject to possessing the requisite qualification for such appointment. In all such appointments, the service rendered in the former category shall count for the purpose of seniority in the later category.” From the above, it is clear that a Typist or a Steno Typist can be converted as a Junior Assistant. However, in all such appointments by conversion, the service rendered in the former category shall be counted for the purpose of seniority in the later category. Though the petitioner was appointed on 22-08-1989 as Typist and got converted as LDC, his seniority was reckoned only from 02-07-1993 and not from 22-08-1989. Therefore, I am of the opinion that as per the amended Regulation passing of the impugned order by the respondents is illegal and arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to reckon the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of L.D.C. from 22- 08-1989, the date of which he was appointed as Typist and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to state that the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits that flow out of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 13-04-2010 Prv