IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 4807 of 2000 Between: G.Venkateswara Rao, S/o Sri Rama Murthy, R/o H.NO.1-6-113, Near Ramalinga Talkies, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Executive Director, Hyderabad Zone, Imblibun, Hyderabad. 3 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Selection Committee, Hyderabad Zone, Imblibun, Hyderabad. 4 Sri T.N.Krishna, Mechanical Chargeman, A.P.S.R.T.C., Narketpally Depot, Narketpally, Nalgonda District. .....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 an order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to orders No.P5/255(21)/99-HZ dt:30-6-99 of Executive Director, Hyderabad Zone, as well as Notiﬁcation dated 22-1-99 ﬁle bearing NO.P5/255 (38)/98-HZ of Selection Committee of Executive Director,Hyderabad Zone and quash them as they were passed illegally,arbitrarily and unconstitution and with a consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 3 herein to promote the petitioner herein earlier to respondent No.4 with all consequential beneﬁts arising out of such promotion and pass such other and further orders as other wise petitioner will suﬀer irreparable loss and injury, in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.THARICHERLA VENUGOPAL RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner, who was working in the post of Leading Hand in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short – ‘the respondent- Corporation’), ﬁled this writ petition questioning the proceedings of the Departmental Selection Committee vide proceedings No.P5/255(38)/98-HZ dated 22-01- 1999 whereby the 4th respondent was promoted to the post of Mechanical Chargeman in Hyderabad Zone in preference to the petitioner and a letter bearing No.P5/255(21)/99-HZ dated 30-06-1999 addressed to the petitioner by the respondent-Corporation whereby the respondent-Corporation informed the petitioner that his case cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Mechanical Chargeman. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as a Cleaner in the respondent-Corporation and that he was given promotions from time to time and that was promoted to the post of Leading Hand with effect from 22-08-1988 as per the oﬃce order No.P6/255(13)/95- RM:NLG dated 01-07-1996 issued by the Regional Manager, Nalgonda, without monetary beneﬁt with regard to retrospective promotion and his seniority was protected in the said order by placing him above the 4th respondent who was also working in the respondent- Corporation as a Leading Hand and a junior to him in service. It is also his case that though he possessed the requisite qualiﬁcation his candidature was not considered to the post of Mechanical Chargeman whereas the case of his junior i.e. the 4th respondent was considered and promoted to the post of Mechanical Chargeman. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondent-Corporation it is stated that the petitioner was temporarily promoted as Mechanical Chargeman as a stop-gap arrangement under Regulation 30 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ Recruitment Regulations, 1966 (for short – ‘the Regulations’) framed under Section 45(1) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, and that according to the Regulations only on completion of three years of service in the post of Leading Hand, a person will become eligible to be promoted as a Mechanical Chargeman which is a selection post and that though the petitioner was promoted to the post of Leading Hand on 02-07-1996 with retrospective eﬀect from 02-08-1988, the period from 02-08-1988 to 02-07- 1996 cannot be counted to determine the qualifying service rendered by him as a Leading Hand and that inasmuch as the petitioner did not possess the required actual service of three years in the post of Leading Hand, his case could not be considered for promotion to the post of Mechanical Chargeman when the promotions were given effect to. From the averments made in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondent-Corporation it is clear that though the petitioner was promoted to the post of Leading Hand on 02-07-1996 the said promotion was given retrospective eﬀect from 02-08-1988. When the Regulations contemplate rendering three years of service as a pre-requisite for promotion to the post of Mechanical Chargeman, it has to be treated as actual service after appointment, but merely because the beneﬁts were given by retrospective eﬀect, it cannot be considered as actual service. As per the Regulations, the post of Mechanical Chargeman is a selection post and merely because the petitioner was given promotion with retrospective eﬀect, he cannot seek any further promotion as a matter of right. When the Departmental Selection Committee issued proceedings No.P5/255(38)/98-HZ dated 22-01-1999 promoting the 4th respondent to the post of Mechanical Chargeman in Hyderabad Zone in preference to the petitioner, the selections were made for promotion to the post of Mechanical Chargeman and the 4th respondent had put in the required actual service of three years in the post of Leading Hand, whereas in the case of petitioner though he was promoted to the post of Leading Hand on 02-07-1996 with retrospective eﬀect from 02-08- 1988, the period from 02-08-1988 to 02-07-1996 cannot be counted to determine the actual service of three years which is pre-requisite for the post of Mechanical Chargeman. In view of the language used in the Regulations unless one renders the actual service of three years in the post of Leading Hand, he is not eligible for promotion to the post of Mechanical Chargeman. In that view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any illegality or inﬁrmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is thus devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd November 2008 CVRK