HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition Nos.4066 and 4029 of 2000 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The petitioners in both the writ petitions seek to quash proceedings No.A2/24248/88 dated 02-7-1993 issued by the first respondent, which was confirmed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.5454 of 1993 vide its order dated 21-1- 2000. Hence, the writ petitions are heard and decided by this common order. 2 . The petitioners herein filed the above O.A. challenging the impugned final seniority list of Typists/Steno-typists after considering their objections. The case of the petitioners is that they were initially appointed in the Irrigation Department as Junior Assistant and Typist respectively and after declaration of the probation, they have made a request for allotment to the Revenue establishment of Karimnagar District, which was accepted. Thus, the petitioners have been re-allotted to the Revenue establishment vide proceedings dated 23-8-1985 and 13-11-1985 consequent upon the creation of Mandal establishments. It is averred that as per Rule 16(1) of A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, the petitioners have to take the last place in the seniority in the cadre of Junior Assistant and Typist. The further case of petitioners is that they have been selected by APPSC and were allotted Karimnagar Revenue Unit and their probation has been declared. The grievance of petitioners is that they are seniors to 30 typists whose names are shown from Serial No.41 to 70 in the final seniority list, but their names were shown after them. 3. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions of the petitioners for allotment to Revenue Unit of Karimnagar district and their consent that they will forego the seniority in the parent department, held that the petitioners are bound to take the last place among the probationers of the Revenue Unit and cannot claim protection under Rule 16(1) of the said Rules. Hence, these writ petitions are filed by applicants. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though the final seniority list was prepared after considering the objections, the petitioners have been shown as juniors. Learned counsel further contended that the probation of petitioners was declared, therefore they could not have been placed on probation again in the Revenue Department. Further, he has drawn our attention to the order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4404 of 2000 dated 25-4-2003 wherein it was held that the petitioners therein were approved probationers and as such, they should have been placed immediately below the approved probationers in the Revenue Department. 6. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners were appointed on temporary basis in the parent department and thereafter, they have exercised option to work in Revenue Unit with the consent to take last rank in the seniority, as such the Tribunal rightly rejected the case of petitioners. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the order of the Division Bench dated 25-4-2003 in W.P.No.4404 of 2000. Admittedly, the probation of petitioners herein has been declared in the parent department and they have requested for allotment to Revenue Department, which was accepted. At the time of allotment, the petitioners had given consent in writing that they will forego the seniority in the parent department and they are ready to take the last place in the cadre in the Revenue Department. It is to be seen that there are employees who have already completed probation in the Revenue Unit of Karimnagar, to which the petitioners were allotted. 8. Apart from the above, the petitioners have been put on probation in the Revenue Unit and on satisfactory completion of probation, they are entitled to reckon the seniority from the date of their initial appointment. But, that by itself will not confer any right on the petitioner to claim protection under Rule 16(1) of the said Rules. It is also to be noticed that the petitioners have not challenged the order placing them under probation on their re-allotment to the Revenue Department. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioners’ counsel has no application to the facts of the case. In the foregoing circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal calling for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The writ petitions are devoid of merits and they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 05-08-2008 bsc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 4066 of 2000 Between: Ch.Prabhakar S/o.late Jaggaiah Collectorate, Karimnagar Karimnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Karimnagar District, Karimnagar 2 V.Nagaraju presently working in the office of the Collectorate, Karimnagar 3 N.Venkat Narsaiah Office of MRO Vemulawada Karimnagar District 4 K.Mohan Reddy presently working in the office of the MRO Ramagundam Karimnagar District 5 A.Satyanarayana O/o.Spl.Deputy Collector, LA.Unit, Flood Flow Canal-2 Collectorate, Karimnagar Karimnagar Dist 6 The A.P.Administrative Tribunal rep.by its Registrar Purani Haveli, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order or direction, in the nature of mandamus or otherwise declaring the final seniority list of Typists/ stenos as issued by the 1st Respondent in his Proc.No.A2/24248/88, Dt.2/7/93 and as confirmed by the Hon'ble A.P.Admn.Tribunal in the common judgment Dt.21/1/2000 in OA.Nos.5453 and 5454/93 as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same in the interest of justice, so far it relates to the petitioner, as otherwise the petitioner will be put to irreperable loss and injury. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.RAMABRAHMAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following :