THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.23723 of 1999 ORDER: I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.B.Vijay Kumar and Sri M.Ramalinga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University. The entire case of the writ petitioner is rested upon the policy decision announced by the State Government through their G.O. Ms. No. 635, General Administration (Service-B) Department, dated 13.9.1979 amending the special rules for the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service, duly conferring the benefit of seniority on a member of service who is appointed from the post of Special Category Stenographer to the post of Superintendent and that of U.D. Stenographer appointed to the post of Upper Division Clerk, to reckon seniority with reference to their respective dates of first appointment as Special Category Stenographer/U.D.Stenographer as the case may be, for the purpose of promotion to the next higher category. The respondent – University has adopted this policy decision for regulating the conditions of service of its employees. The writ petitioner while she was serving the respondent University as a U.D. Stenographer sought for conversion as a U.D. Clerk. Acceding to her request, she was converted as U.D. Clerk on 9.11.1987. The next higher category to which a U.D. Clerk can be promoted is the post of Office Superintendent. One is required to render three years of service to become eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent. Hence the writ petitioner though was promoted as an Office Superintendent on 19.10.1990, but, however by the proceedings of the Vice Chancellor dated 13.2.1992, the said date has been revised to 9.11.1990 so as to ensure that she has put in three years of service by then. In this writ petition, it is now prayed that her seniority in the category of Superintendent should be revised by reckoning the past service rendered by her as a U.D. Stenographer and on that basis accord her notional promotion with retrospective date with all monetary benefits. It is appropriate to point out that for the purpose of reckoning the seniority in the category of U.D. Clerks, the writ petitioner would be entitled to such length of service rendered by her as a U.D. Stenographer, to be taken into consideration. However, if a person was required to put in a minimum of three years of service as a U.D. Clerk to become eligible for promotion to the next higher post of Office Superintendent, until and unless the said three years of service is put in by the individual, one does not become eligible for such promotion, irrespective of the fact whether he or she is the senior most to be so promoted. In other words, even though by virtue of reckoning the service rendered by the individual as a U.D. Stenographer, for the purpose of reckoning seniority in U.D.C. cadre, he or she will not become eligible for promotion to the next higher post of Office Superintendent without acquiring the eligibility of completion of three years of service as U.D. Clerk. Therefore, in the instant case, the writ petitioner is treated to have been promoted as an Office Superintendent with effect from 9.11.1990, the date on which she has completed three years of service as a U.D. Clerk. The writ petitioner has not been converted as an Office Superintendent from the rank of Special Category Stenographer. She was converted to the post of U.D. Clerk from the post of U.D. Stenographer. Therefore, the length of service rendered by her as a U.D. Stenographer cannot be tagged on or reckoned for the purpose of regulating the seniority in the higher category post of Office Superintendent. The length of service put in by the writ petitioner as a U.D. Stenographer alone will be relevant for the purpose of reckoning the seniority in the category of U.D. Clerk, but not for the next higher post. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. But, however, without costs. -------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 6th July 2010