IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8740 of 1999 Between: 1 General Manager, South Central Railway Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad 2 Chief Personnel Officer South Central Railway Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad 3 Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 R.Swaraj Laxmi Junior Lecturer/Hindi Railway Junior College, Kazipeta Wargangal Dist 2 Central Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad 3 R.T.Patil 4 A.R. Anjaneyulu 5 Sudam Namdev Kandare 6 C.V.L.Narayana Rao 7 T.Kutumba Rao 8 A.M.Khan 9 J.Satyanarayana 10 N.K.Prabhavathi 11 K.Jananki RRS. 3 to 11 are not necessary parties to this WP .....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 issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the order of the Central Administriative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad passed in OA.No. 82/1997 dated. 4/01/1999 as null and void and allow the Writ petitioner with costs through out and pass WRIT PETITION NO : 8735 of 1999 Between: 1 General Manager, South Central Railway, Union of India Rail Nilayam Secunderabad 2 Cheif Personnel Officer South Central Railway Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad 3 Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway Vijayawada, Krishna District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 R.Swaraj Laxmi Junior Lecture/Hindi, Railway Junior college, Kazipeta , Warangal District 2 Centraly Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the order of theCentral Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad passed in OA.No.222/1999 dt. 11/02/1999 as null and void and allow the writ petitioner with costs throughout and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.GOURI SHANKAR SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MS.NASEEB AFSHAN FOR RROC-1 The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.8740 AND 8735 OF 1999 COMMON ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) Since the parties and facts involved in the writ petitions are common, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The first respondent was initially appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher on 10.8.1971 and she was promoted as Post Graduate Trained Teacher in the scale of pay of Rs.1640-2900 and posted at Railway Higher Secondary School (Marathi Medium) Purna, (MG) Division, by order, dated 5.6.1990. On her request, she was transferred as Junior Lecturer (Hindi) on bottom of seniority to the Railway Junior College, Kazipet, through orders dated 28.6.1993. Pursuant to the notification, dated 10.6.1994, the first respondent applied for the post of Head Master/Head Mistress, but her candidature was rejected and her name was not included in the interview list. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 filed O.A.No.1057 of 1996. While pending the said O.A., after announcement of results of Head Master/Head Mistress posts, respondent No.1 filed O.A.No.82 of 1997 seeking stay of operation of panel selected by the authorities through proceedings dated 12.12.1996. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the petitioners to consider the case of respondent No.1 for promotion to the post of Head Mistress by calling her for interview. Against that order, the petitioners filed writ petition No.8740 of 1999. 3. In October,1998, a notification was issued by the petitioners to fill up similar posts (Head Masters/Head Mistress) and for selections, necessary interviews were held on that date. Respondent No.1 was called for interview. Respondent No.1 stated that if the direction of the Tribunal in O.A.No.82 of 1997 is complied with, her position in the seniority would go up and her name would find place between Nos. 6 and 7, whereas she was shown at No.13 and therefore, she filed O.A.No.222 of 1999 seeking direction to the authorities to check and verify the same. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, disposed of the O.A. and directed the petitioners to consider the case of respondent No.1 for promotion to the post of Head Mistress by calling her for interview and if she is successful as per the rules, include her name in the select list pursuant to 1998 notification. Against the said order, the writ petition No.8735 of 1999 is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even though respondent No.1 worked as Post Graduate Trained Teacher in Marathi Medium at Purna, she voluntarily given up her seniority in that cadre for transferring and posting as Junior Lecturer (Hindi) at Railway Junior College, Kazipet on bottom of seniority, as such, the question of considering her seniority in the cadre of Post Graduate Trained Teacher and giving promotion as Head Mistress would not arise. The learned counsel contended that separate seniority lists being maintained for Post Graduate Trained Teacher and Junior Lecturer cadres. The learned counsel further contended that the seniority of post graduate teachers in the schools and seniority of junior lecturers in the colleges though considered for promotion to the post of Head Masters/Head Mistress (Gazetted), respondent No.1 is not entitled to be considered for the same as she voluntary given up her seniority in the cadre of Post Graduate Trained Teachers and joined as Junior Lecturer on bottom of seniority in the cadre of Junior Lecturers. Therefore, the orders passed by the Tribunal are erroneous and do not stand to scrutiny. The learned counsel also drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Union of India and others Vs. Deo Narain and others [1] wherein it was held as under: Eligibility and seniority are two different concepts. Completion of combined qualifying service in previous and new cadres might render an employee eligible to be considered for promotion but does not entitled such an employee to be promoted by jumping over his seniors in new cadre. 5. A perusal of record goes to show that while respondent No.1 was working as Post Graduate Trained Teacher at Purna, on her own request, she was transferred and posted at Railway Junior College, Kazipet on bottom of seniority. Once she obtained bottom of service in the cadre of Junior Lecturers, she cannot claim seniority in the cadre of Post Graduate Trained Teachers. The promotion to the post of Head Mistress/Head Master would be given after reckoning the seniority of both cadres of Post Graduate Trained Teachers and Junior Lecturers together. But respondent No.1 has already given up her seniority in the cadre of Post Graduate Teachers, which was pre-condition for transferring and posting her as Junior Lecturer (Hindi) at Railway Junior College, Kazipet, on bottom of service. The decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioners, is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Moreover, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Ms.Naseeb Afshan, submitted that respondent No.1 has already retired from service. Further, the interim stay granted by this court on 21.6.1999 is in operation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned orders challenged in these writ petitions. 6. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders in both the writ petitions are set-aside. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 20-03-2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{GR} [1] (2008) 10 SCC 84