IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7125 of 1999 Between: S.N.Prakash, S/o Narayanachary, E.No.66397, Zonal Workshop, A.P.S.R.T.C., Cuddapah ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director Musheerabad Hyderabad. 2 Works Manager, Zonal Workshop A.P.S.R.T.C. Hyderabad 3 J.Purushottam, Zonal Wrokship, A.P.S.R.T.C., Cuddapah 4 N.Anjaneyulu Zonal Wrokship, A.P.S.R.T.C., Cuddapah 5 P.Rajashekhar Zonal Wrokship, A.P.S.R.T.C., Cuddapah 6 V.Govind Reddy Zonal Wrokship, A.P.S.R.T.C., Cuddapah .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more fully in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner to the post of Leading hand with effect from 1-6-81 i.e., the day on which his junior was promoted with all consequential benefits by declaring the action of the respondent in not promoting the petitioner on par with his Juniors as illegal, improper and arbitrary and pass such or other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.K.SESHARAJYAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7125 of 1999 ORDER: Seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner to the post of Leading Hand with effect from 01.06.1981, the date on which his junior was promoted, and to pay all consequential benefits, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner was selected as a Mechanic in 1977 and his services were regularized in A.P.S.R.T.C. on 10.01.1979. Promotion from the post of Mechanic is to the post of Mechanic in Grade-I Leading Hand. One Sri V.Govinda Reddy, who was appointed along with the petitioner as a Mechanic and who was shown as a Junior to him in all the proceedings, was promoted to the post of Mechanic Grade-I, ignoring the petitioner’s case resulting in his raising an Industrial Dispute being I.D.No.15 of 1988 on the file of the Labour Court, Anantapur. The Labour Court, in its award dated 30.01.1991, held that the A.P.S.R.T.C., Karmika Sangh, was justified in demanding that the workman (S.N.Prakash) be given promotion with retrospective effect from 1982 by restoring his seniority over Sri V.Govinda Reddy. The award was implemented and the petitioner was promoted as a Leading Hand and placed above Sri V.Govinda Reddy in the seniority list of Leading Hands, more so, since the writ petition filed by the respondent- Corporation, challenging the validity of the award, was dismissed by this Court. The petitioner’s grievance in the present writ petition is that, since Sri J.Purushottam (Respondent No.3), Sri N.Anjaneyulu (Respondent No.4) and Sri P.Rajashekhar (Respondent No.5) were juniors to Sri V.Govinda Reddy, the petitioner ought to have been placed above them in the seniority list also. He would rely on a communal roster seniority list enclosed as part of the material papers which would disclose the petitioner’s name at serial No.17, that of Sri V.Govinda Reddy at serial No.21 and that of Sri J.Purushottam at serial No.22. It is relevant to note that this statement which contains the names of candidates from serial No.13 to serial No.30 does not include the names of Sri N.Anjaneyulu and Sri P.Rajashekhar. It is not known as to whether these two employees were shown in the top 12 or after serial No.30 in the said list. Be that as it may, a perusal of the said statement would disclose that Sri J.Purushottam belongs to the Scheduled Caste, whereas both the petitioner and Sri V.Govinda Reddy belong to the open category. The seniority list was finalized as early as in the year 1981 whereas the challenge to the said seniority list was mounted only in 1991 i.e., more than 10 years after the seniority list was finalized. Since none of respondents 3 to 5 were parties to the award of the Labour Court, the said award cannot be said to bind them or to disentitle them from claiming the seniority over and above the petitioner. Since the petitioner had not chosen to challenge their seniority earlier and had kept quite for nearly 10 years before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I see no reason at this length of time to interfere with the seniority list and to now hold that the petitioner is senior to respondents 3 to 5. The relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted more so on the ground of inordinate delay and latches. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 16th April, 2008 v v To 1 Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad Hyderabad. 2 Works Manager, Zonal Workshop A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad. 3 Two CCs to 4 Two CD copies.