IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24160 of 1999 Between: Ch.Laxman, S/o. Rajalingam, A.P.Transco, Joinad Mandal, Adilabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, A.P.Transco, Adilabad. 2 The Divisional Engineer (Elec) C & O, A.P.S.E.B., Adilabad. 3 Md.Akbar, AP.Transco, Boath Mandal, Adilabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for all the connected records including impugned Seniority list prepared by the 2nd Respondent in vide Proceedings in Memo No.DEE/OP/AP Transco/ADB/Estt/D.No.1659/99 dated 29/10/1999 and quash the same as illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to rules and further declare that the petitioner is entitle for promotion to promotion as line Man by treating as Senior to the 3rd Respondent and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.C.H.SATISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the seniority of 3rd respondent as fixed in the Proceedings in Memo No. DEE/OP/APTRANSCO/ADB/Estt./D.No.1659/99, dated 29.10.1999. 2. The petitioner as well as respondent No.3 were initially appointed to the post of Helper in the service of A.P.TRANSCO. The petitioner was appointed on 01.11.1970, whereas respondent No.3 was appointed on 16.11.1969. Thus, in the category of Helper, respondent No.3 was senior to the petitioner. Subsequently, both of them were promoted to the post of Assistant Lineman. Thereafter, the respondents have prepared the seniority list of the employees working in the category of Assistant Lineman, wherein, the name of respondent No.3 was shown at Serial No.2 while that of the petitioner was shown at Serial No.4. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in the seniority list of Assistant Linemen, which was prepared during the years 1994 and 1996, the name of respondent No.3 did not figure, but however, in the seniority list prepared on 29.10.1999, the 3rd respondent was shown as senior to him. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that both the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 were promoted to the post of Assistant Lineman by a common order dated 18.12.1980, passed in Memo No.DEE/OP/NML/Estt/324/80. It is further stated that respondent No.3 was working in the Operation Division of Nirmal, but on administrative grounds, he was transferred to Adilabad Division vide letter No.DE/OP/NML/Estt/D.No.141/97, dated 18.06.1997. 5. Though the petitioner claimed seniority over respondent No.3, but there is no basis for claiming such seniority. In fact, the 3rd respondent was appointed as a Helper prior to the petitioner and as such, he was senior in the category of Helper. Even while promoting to the post of Assistant Lineman, both were promoted by a common order as evident from the counter affidavit. Merely because the name of respondent No.3 was not shown in the seniority list of 1994 and 1996, he cannot be deprived of his due seniority as he was transferred to the division where the petitioner was working, on administrative grounds. Asmuch as respondent No.3 was working in the Operation Division of Nirmal, his name was not rightly shown in the seniority list, which was prepared prior to 18.06.1997. Asmuch as the transfer is not on the request of respondent No.3 and the same is an administrative transfer as stated in the counter affidavit, respondent No.3 is entitled for seniority from the date of promotion to the post of Assistant Lineman. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the preparation of seniority list, fixing the seniority of respondent No.3 over the petitioner in Adilabad Division. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merit, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st January 2009. ajr