THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WP NO.22714 OF 1998 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to call for the records relating to the proceedings No.NU/Estt/NTS/E.1/Prom/ 98-99, dated 7-8-1998 issued by the ﬁrst respondent and quash the same in so far as seniority of respondent Nos.2 to 4 shown therein and retaining respondents Nos.2 and 3 at Nagarjuna University, Post Graduate Centre, Nuzvid by virtue of the seniority shown in the above said proceedings and consequently direct respondent No.1 to restore the seniority of the petitioner over and above respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in the cadre of Senior Assistants and retain the petitioner at Nagarjuna University, Post Graduate Centre, Nuzvid and also call for the proceedings relating to letter No.S.III (1)/2061/94, dated 21-7- 1998 issued by the 5th respondent and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed by selection through direct recruitment as L.D clerk by order dated 6.5.1978 by the Andhra University. Initially, he was appointed in the Andhra University Post Graduate Centre at Nuzvid. The second respondent was also appointed along with the petitioner as L.D.Clerk as per the roaster points and rule of reservation. The second respondent was junior to the petitioner in the cadre of L.D.Clerks and the same was shown in the seniority list issued for the cadre of L.D.Clerks in the circular dated 23.2.1982 issued by the Andhra University. In the said seniority list, the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.257 and whereas the name of the second respondent was shown at Sl.No.260. Therefore, there is no dispute as to the seniority of the petitioner over the second respondent in the cadre of L.D.Clerks. The Nuzvid Post Graduate Centre subsequently was transferred to the Nagarjuna University and the same is now functioning under the Nagarjuna University. With the transfer of the Post Graduate Centre to the Nagarjuna University nothing has changed and service conditions and seniority of the personnel in the Nuzvid Post Graduate Centre remained as before. The ﬁrst respondent issued proceedings dated 7-8-1998 promoting the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and other un- oﬃcial respondents, but surprisingly showing them as seniors to the petitioner and retained second and third respondents in the Post Graduate Centre by virtue of the seniority shown in the proceedings and driving the petitioner to the Registrar’s Oﬃce at Nagarjuna University Campus illegally. The second respondent is junior to the petitioner as per the seniority list. In fact, the second respondent has tendered his resignation by his letter dated 28-2-1987 to the Registrar, Andhra University with an intention to contest the Municipal elections. The said resignation of the second respondent was accepted by the Andhra University by order dated 28-2-1987. The second respondent was relieved and was allowed to contest the election. Surprisingly, the second respondent was re-appointed by the Andhra University by order dated 30-11-1987 after a gap of nine months to the reasons best known to the authorities. By virtue of the resignation the second respondent lost his prior service and his seniority be reckoned from the date of re- appointment by the Andhra University. The second respondent by virtue of the above resignation only be allowed to take last rank in the seniority list in the cadre of L.D.Clerks. But to the reasons best known to the authorities all his antics were concealed and he was allowed to be re- appointed and all his service was restored by securing seniority over the petitioner. The petitioner along with several L.D. Clerks have made representations during the year 1994 and 1997 bringing all these facts to the notice of the ﬁrst respondent and requested the ﬁrst respondent not to consider the case of the second respondent for promotion to the next cadre in view of his resignation. Ignoring the representations and also the service rules, with an intention to give beneﬁts to the second respondent, the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings. The seniority of the second respondent was shown at Serial No.260 below the name of the petitioner earlier, but the same is now altered without giving any reasons and without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner. The action of the ﬁrst respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings giving seniority to the second respondent is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the service rules. The third respondent-O.Ratna Kumari and respondent No.4-Md.Saleem were shown at Sl.No.258(a) and Sl.No.258 respectively. But the ﬁrst respondent to the reasons best known, altered the seniority. Therefore, the action of the 1st respondent in showing the 2nd respondent and others as seniors to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the service rules. The ﬁrst respondent ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit denying the claim of the petitioner inter alia stated that the petitioner and 2nd respondent were appointed as L.D Clerks by the Andhra University by the same order dated 6-5-1978 and posted to Andhra University Post Graduate Centre, Nuzvid. Both of them were reported to duty on 11-05-1978 at Andhra University Post Graduate Centre, Nuzvid. The petitioner was shown as second in the order of the seniority in the said appointment order whereas the 2nd respondent was shown above the petitioner at No.1. As per the seniority list issued by the Andhra University relating to Junior Assistants furnished by the Andhra University with its letter No.S.III (1)/2061/94, dated 26-07-1994, the name of the petitioner is shown as No.2 and the second respondent was shown as No.1, as per the seniority ﬁxed in the appointment order. While sending the list, the Andhra University has also informed that common seniority in respect of Junior Assistant/Typist/Steno Typists put together is maintained in the University and promotion to next higher post Senior Assistant is being given as per the combined seniority of the Junior Assistants/Typists/Steno Typists. As the University needs common and combined seniority list for promotion to higher post namely Senior Assistants, a letter (No.NU/Estt/NTS/E-1/97-98, dated 5-8-1997) addressed to Andhra University to send a common seniority list of staﬀ appointed by them at Post Graduate Centre, Nuzvid for considering them for promotion. In a reply to the oﬃce letter of 5-8-1997 the 5th respondent Andhra University has communicated the combined seniority list of Junior Assistants/Typists/Steno Typists of the staff of Andhra University who have opted to serve in Nagarjuna University. In the said list the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No.1 and the name of respondent No.2 was shown at Serial No.5. Thereafter, the 5th respondent, Andhra University through its letter No.S.III(1)/2061/94, dated 7-10-1997 informed that respondent No.2 has represented that there is a discrepancy in the seniority furnished and requested to rectify the same and send the same to the Registrar, Nagarjuna University. Thereafter, the Andhra University-5th respondent has communicated the seniority list through its letter dated 21-07-1998 in which the petitioner’s name was shown at serial No.4 and the 2nd respondent’s name was shown at serial No.1. It is further stated that Nuzvid Post Graduate Centre was transferred from Andhra University to Nagarjuna University by G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 13-07-1993 and the staﬀ, who opted to Nagarjuna University, be absorbed and their seniority shall be protected basing on the seniority ﬁxed by the Andhra University and informed through letter No.S.III(1)/2061/94, dated 21-07-1998, the promotions were given to the persons noted in the proceedings dated 7-8-1998 and their seniority was also fixed accordingly. The second respondent and O.Ratna Kumari-the third respondent were retained at Nagarjuna University Post Graduate Centre, Nuzvid, not by virtue of their seniority, but as per the Administrative convenience, and no where it is mentioned that the retention of respondent Nos.2 and 3 was done basing on the seniority. The claim of the petitioner is that he is senior to respondent No.2 based on the provisional seniority list. The ﬁnal seniority list furnished by Andhra University with its letter dated 21-07-1998 has been adopted by Nagarjuna University. The seniority ﬁxed by the Andhra University to the persons who opted to work in Nagarjuna University has to be accepted by Nagarjuna University as they were appointed by the Andhra University originally. The reasons to ﬁx L.Srinivasa Rao as senior than V.S.Manikyala Rao by Andhra University is not known to Nagarjuna University. It is not true to say that the petitioner and others have made representation during 1994 and 1997 bringing all the facts to the notice of the ﬁrst respondent. Even assuming that such representations are made Nagarjuna University has no jurisdiction over the matters of their seniority or appointments as they were originally appointed by Andhra University. There is no intention on the part of the ﬁrst respondent University to beneﬁt the second respondent by ignoring the service rules. In the provisional seniority list issued by Andhra University, L.Srinivasa Rao-2nd respondent was shown at serial No.260 below the name of V.S.Manikyala Rao, the petitioner herein. But after the ﬁnal seniority list was furnished by the Andhra University on 21-07-1998 the petitioner and 2nd respondent and others were given promotions. The present retention of Srinivasarao-2nd respondent after promotion as Senior Assistant in Nagarjuna University Post Graduate Centre, Nuzvid has nothing to do with the seniority in lower cadre or in promotion cadre and postings were given as per administrative convenience. It is stated that the staﬀ working in Post Graduate Centre, Nuzvid, were appointed by the Andhra University before transfer of the said Post Graduate Centre from Andhra University to Nagarjuna University, basing on the Government Orders. Accordingly they were absorbed by the Nagarjuna University. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the 5th respondent made the changes in the seniority issued on 23-2-1982 without any intimation and subsequent changes communicated through letter dated 21- 07-1998 is to be clariﬁed by the Andhra University-5th respondent. This University has neither ﬁxed seniority nor made changes in the seniority. This is to make it very clear that the averment that the retention of others at Nagarjuna University Post Graduate Centre, Nuzvid on the basis of seniority is baseless and misconceived. It is also stated that in pursuance of the telegraphic orders of this Court the case of the petitioner was considered by Committee consisting of the Finance Oﬃcer, Controller of Examinations and Deputy Registrar (Administration) and the following are the ﬁndings of the committee. “1.As per the aﬃdavit ﬁled by the individual, it appears that the individual is claiming seniority over Sri L.Srinivasa Rao, O.Rathna Kumari and Mohammed Saleem. The above seniority was ﬁxed by the Andhra University which is ﬁfth respondent in the present case. A seniority list ﬁnalized by the Andhra University is enclosed wherein Sri V.S.Manikyala Rao stands at Sl.NO.4. The seniority of the individual has not been ﬁxed by the Nagarjuna University. The services of the above individuals were transferred from Andhra University giving them seniority as per the list enclosed. 2. The promotions which are made in the proceedings No.NU/Estt/NTS/E1/PROM/98-99,dated 7-8- 1998 as per the seniority ﬁxed by the Andhra University vide their letter No.S.III(1)2061/94, dated 21-07-1998. 3.The postings which are made in the above proceedings of Nagarjuna University are not based on seniority and were made as per the administrative convenience. 4. In the light of the above, this committee feels that the request of V.S.Manikyala Rao, is not tenable and liable for rejection. 5. However, his request for the extension of time up to 10-09-1998 is considered and he may be given time to join as Senior Assistant on or before 10-09- 1998.” Accordingly, he was informed and he was given time to join upto 10-09-1998 as requested by the petitioner. In view of the actual factual matrix the interim order dated 20-08-1998 is liable to be vacated and the main writ petition itself is liable to be dismissed. A counter-aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the second respondent wherein it is stated that himself and the petitioner were appointed vide proceedings dated 6-5-78 by the Andhra University. The Clause (iv) of the memorandum categorically discloses the seniority. The Andhra University issued a circular dated 23-2-1982, mentioning provisional seniority of L.D. clerks, presently designated as Junior Assistants and also called for objection from the concerned. As the seniority mentioned in the circular is contrary to the seniority mentioned in the appointment order, he made several representations to the University authorities and after a long gap the authorities have rectiﬁed the mistake vide proceedings dated 21-07-1998 retaining his seniority as per the appointment order. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he is senior to him is not correct. It is true that he had resigned his post to contest the elections. After the election, he made a representation to Andhra University to permit him to withdraw his resignation and treat the period of absence as on leave and that his withdrawal of resignation was accepted its proceedings dated 16-4-1990 has resolved “L.Srinivasa Rao, Junior Assistant permitted to withdraw the resignation tendered by him to the post of Junior Assistant w.e.f. 28-02-1987. It is further stated that he ﬁled caveat petition apprehending that the petitioner and others will question the decision of the executive council. Till today, the petitioner has not questioned the decision of the Executive Council, which has become ﬁnal. The reappointment of the 2nd respondent was cancelled in view of the above said proceedings dated 16-4-1990. Therefore, there is no scope for gap of the service and the pay scale was also regularized. He was given special adhoc promotion by 5th respondent vide proceedings dated 29-4-1991, after completion of continuous service of 10 years in the post of Junior Assistant. This order was also not questioned by the petitioner at any point of time. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. The 5th respondent ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit. It is stated that the petitioner along with six others was appointed as L.D.Clerks in the Andhra University Post Graduate Centre at Nuzvid by an order dated 6-5-1978 in the following order of seniority. (1) L.Srinivasa Rao (2) V.S.Manikyala Rao (3) R.Krishna Kumari (4) M.Mallaiah (5) B.Srinivasa Rao (6) V.Hari Hara Prasad (7) P.L.Samrajyam. On the same day by another order the following persons were appointed as Typists in the order of seniority. (1) O.Ratna Kumari (2) Salim Mohammad (3) P.Nancharaiah (4) B.Valleswara Rani. Both the L.D.Clerks and Typists constitute the same category for promotion and seniority. When the question arose as to the manner of ﬁxation of the inter se seniority the matter was referred to service matter committee and this committee ﬁxed the inter se seniority as follows: (1) L.Srinivasa Rao, Junior Assistant (2) O.Ratna Kumari, Typist (3) Salim Mohammnad, Typist (4) V.S.Manikyala Rao, Typist (5) P.Nanchariaah, Typist (6) B.Valleswara Rani, Typist, (7) M.Mallaiah, Junior Assistant (8) B.Srinivasa Rao, Junior Assistant (9) V.Hari Hara Prasad. The University approved the recommendation of the Committee and communicated the same to the 1st respondent for taking necessary action. As can be seen from the order of appointment and also the list of names in the inter se seniority list, L.Srinivasa Rao-2nd respondent was senior to the petitioner. It is also stated that the control and establishment of Post Graduate Center, Nuzvid was transferred to Nagarjuna University with effect from 12-07-1993. The Andhra University has no information regarding the fact of promotion of the 2nd respondent. The records also reveal that the 2nd respondent tendered resignation for contesting the Municipal Elections. But, later he withdrew his resignation and his absence from 29-03-1987 to 30-4-1987 was permitted to be treated as leave to which he was eligible. He is therefore deemed to be in continuous service of the University without any break and he retains his seniority over the petitioner. It is further stated that the second respondent was junior to the petitioner and that the case of the 2nd respondent that his resignation was accepted and relieved and that after gap of nine months the Andhra University re-appointed him is not correct. The second respondent’s promotion is made by the Nagarjuna University. The Andhra University has not altered the seniority without any necessity. The 1 st respondent-Nagarjuna University requested the Andhra University to determine and ﬁx the inter se seniority. The Andhra University referred the matter to the service matter committee and the committee has ﬁxed the seniority as stated above and the list of seniority was forwarded to the Nagarjuna University. Therefore, there is no question of un- necessary intrusion into the aspect of inter se seniority by the Andhra University. It was only at the request of the Nagarjuna University they had ﬁxed the seniority and forwarded the same to the Nagarjuna University. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed. Now the point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the proceedings issued by the authorities vide proceedings dated 7-8-1998, which is impugned in the writ petition is arbitrary or illegal and whether the petitioner is entitled to declare as senior to respondent Nos.2 and 3? There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner and the second respondent were temporarily appointed as L.D.Clerks vide proceedings dated 6-5-1978. In the said proceedings the names of the second respondent and petitioner were shown at serial Nos.1 and 2. Clause (iv) of the said proceedings says that the seniority among the above 7 candidates is as per order. The basis for the claim of the petitioner is the Circular dated 23-2-1982 whereby the provisional seniority list was prepared. In the provisional seniority list the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No.257, the name of the second respondent was shown at serial No.260 and names of 3rd and 4th respondents were shown at serial Nos.258(a) and 258 respectively. It appears that questioning the discrepancy that the name of the second respondent was shown below the petitioner, the second respondent appears to have made a representation to the authorities concerned to rectify the mistake and showing him as senior to the petitioner as per the seniority mentioned in the appointment order. The Andhra University issued proceedings dated 21-07-1998 showing the name of the 2nd respondent at serial No.1, name of the 3rd respondent at serial No.2, the name of the 4th respondent at serial No.3 and the name of the petitioner at serial No.4. Pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, the case of the petitioner was considered by Committee of Officers and held as under: “1.As per the aﬃdavit ﬁled by the individual, it appears that the individual is claiming seniority over Sri L.Srinivasa Rao, O.Rathna Kumari and Mohammed Saleem. The above seniority was ﬁxed by the Andhra University which is ﬁfth respondent in the present case. A seniority list ﬁnalized by the Andhra University is enclosed wherein Sri V.S.Manikyala Rao stands at Sl.No.4. The seniority of the individual has not been ﬁxed by the Nagarjuna University. The services of the above individuals were transferred from Andhra University giving them seniority as per the list enclosed. 2. The promotions which are made in the proceedings No.NU/Estt/NTS/E1/PROM/98- 99, dated 7-8-1998 as per the seniority ﬁxed by the Andhra University vide their letter No.S.III(1)2061/94, dated 21-07-1998. 3.The postings which are made in the above proceedings of Nagarjuna University are not based on seniority and were made as per the administrative convenience. 4. In the light of the above, this committee feels that the request of V.S.Manikyala Rao, is not tenable and liable for rejection. 5. However, his request for the extension of time upto 10-09-1998 is considered and he may be given time to join as Senior Assistant on or before 10-09-1998.” It is to be seen that basically the claim of the petitioner is that he is senior to the un-oﬃcial respondents. As per the appointment order itself, the name of the second respondent was shown at serial No.1 and the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No.2. The said seniority list appears to be maintained except in the year 1992 where provisional seniority list was prepared. There is no basis for preparing the provisional seniority list but when it was found that the name of the second respondent is found later to the petitioner, the second respondent started making representations constantly seeking for rectiﬁcation and restoring the seniority as per the appointment order. No service rules regarding the seniority is placed before this Court. The counter- aﬃdavits ﬁled by 1st and 5th respondents reveal that the petitioner is junior to the second respondent and thereafter the combined provisional seniority list has been prepared. In the combined provisional seniority list also the name of the second respondent was shown above the petitioner and the same was not challenged and it has become ﬁnal. The combined provisional seniority list has been prepared by a Committee constituted by the University after considering elaborately the grievance of the petitioner and the second respondent. Further, pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court on 20-08-1998 the Committee had also considered the case of the petitioner and held that his claim is un-tenable. Under those circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case to declare the impugned proceedings as invalid. Once the combined seniority list is prepared, there is no validity for the provisional seniority list. The seniority list is prepared enabling the employees to point out any grievance if any occurred so as to rectify the same by the competent authority in fixation of the seniority. In the instant case, only one incident wherein the provisional seniority list was prepared showing the seniority of the LDCs, Typists and Steno-Typists, in which the name of the petitioner was shown above the un-oﬃcial respondents. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Nagarjuna University has not committed any mistake in issuing the proceedings dated 7-8-1998 whereunder Junior Assistants/Typists were promoted as Senior Assistants/Care Taker in the scale of Rs.2195-4560 and the petitioner appears to have joined the duty in compliance of the said order and retired from service and received all the retirement benefits. In that view of the matter, the petitioner failed to make out any case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. ___________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J rkk Dated: 30-09-2011