IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 34814 of 1998 Between: K. Appa Rao S/o Ananthaiah Zonal Stores, APSRTC, Nellore. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Director, APSRTC, Nellore. 2 The Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, APSRTC, Nellore. 3 S. Reddappa, Manager, APSRTC, Nellore. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.MALLIK Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to assign notional seniority to the petitioner by granting appropriate rank after following 1:1 ratio between promotees and direct recruitees as per the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Recruitment Regulations, 1966 (for short “the Regulations”) by setting aside proceedings dated 28-05-1998 issued by respondent No.1. Heard Sri V.Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was appointed as a Mechanic in the year 1979 in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”). Selections were held for the post of Junior Assistant (Material) in the year 1991. Selection procedure comprised written test, interview and viva-voce. The petitioner appeared for the selections and was not promoted as Junior Assistant in the year 1991. However, he was promoted to the said post with effect from 10-05- 1993. The grievance of the petitioner is two-fold, i.e; (1) though according to the Regulations of the Corporation, the promotions and direct recruitments are to be made in the ratio of 1:1, but out of the 19 vacancies existed in the year 1991, only 7 candidates were promoted and the remaining 12 posts were filled up by direct recruitees and (2) alternatively the petitioner should have been adjusted at Serial No.21 in the place of Sri Sd.Meera Saheb, who was qualified for promotion, but was not promoted as he declined promotion, in order to maintain 1:1 ratio as was done in the case of Sri G.V.R.Rao and Sri D.Subba Rao. Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, submitted that as the petitioner failed to secure 50% of the marks in the written test and viva-voce, put together in the year 1991, he did not come up for selection in that year and it is only in the year 1993 that he got qualified for promotion. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Corporation strictly maintained 1:1 ratio all through and offered promotions to Sri Sd.Meera Saheb and Sri G.L.Narayana, but they declined the offer. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is fixed at proper place in the seniority list and that the same does not require any revision. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. In proceedings dated 28-05-1998 issued by the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Nellore, notifying the final seniority list, it is stated in para 2 that Sri G.V.R Rao and Sri D.Subba Rao were actually promoted during the year 1992; that their rank in the seniority list was shown on par with those who were appointed during 1991, to have a proper representation of promotees against the points earmarked for them in the administrative roster. Based on this statement contained in the said proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though Sri G.V.R.Rao and Sri D.Subba Rao were promoted in the year 1992, they were adjusted against Serial Nos.9 and 11 pushing down Sri S.M.Roshan and Sri Sk.J.Basha, who are direct recruitees at Serial Nos. 8 and 12 to Serial Nos.10 and 12. The learned counsel submitted that following the same analogy, the petitioner, who is shown at Serial No.25, should have been given the place of Sri Sd. Meera Saheb at Serial No.21, as the said Meera Saheb declined promotion. I find merit in this submission of the learned counsel. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in order to maintain 1:1 ratio among direct recruitees and promotees, Sri G.V.R.Rao and Sri D.Subba Rao were pushed above Sri S.M.Roshan and Sri Sk.J.Basha, who, but for this ratio would have figured above Sri G.V.R.Rao and Sri D.Subba Rao respectively. That being the case, I do not see any rationale in not following the same principle in the case of the petitioner by pushing him up, to take the place of Sri Sd. Meera Saheb. In normal course, a direction should have been issued to this effect. But as pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, if the same is done, it would adversely affect Sri G.V.R.Rao and Sri Md.H.Rahman, the direct recruitees at Serial Nos.22 and 24. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for giving him seniority at Serial No.21 in the place of Sri Sd. Meera Saheb, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to Sri G.S.Rao and Md.H.Rahman, direct recruitees at Serial Nos.22 and 24. Respondent No.1 shall complete this exercise within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 24th November,2008 vrn