IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1090 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 25.08.2008 in W.P.No.8093 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court) Between: 1. Sri. K. Madhukumar S/o. K.Laxman O/o. District Forum - II, OD at APSCDRC, Hyderabad. ... APPELLANT AND 1 The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Eruvaka Building, Khairatabad, Hyderabad Rep., by its Registrar. 2 T. Vijitha Devi, D/o. T. Vasudeva Reddy R/o. H.No. 2-2-25/3/6, D.D.Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. 3 D. Jyothi Sree W/o. C. Rajender Reddy R/o. 12-2-460/6, Jeevan Kalyan Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad - 500 028. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR. S. SATYAM REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP, CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3: MR. A. SUDERSHAN REDDY The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per R. Subhash Reddy, J) This writ appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is ﬁled by the second respondent in W.P.No.8093 of 2007, aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2008 passed by the learned single Judge. 2. By the aforesaid order, the learned single Judge set aside the promotion of the appellant herein to the post of Sheristadar by setting aside the order dated 28-02-2007. We refer to the parties herein as arrayed in the writ petition. 3. The writ petitioners and the second respondent are in the service of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Their recruitment and promotion are presently governed by Andhra Pradesh District Consumer Fora (Subordinate Service) Rules, 2006 framed in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioners were holding the post of Junior Assistant, whereas the second respondent was working as Junior Stenographer, which are feeder posts for the next higher post, i.e. Senior Assistant. For holding the post of Senior Assistant, the candidate must have passed Civil Judicial Test Part-II, Criminal Judicial Test and Accounts Test for Subordinate Oﬃcers Part-I. The writ petitioners, by 21.06.2005, have passed such tests, whereas the second respondent did not pass the tests, but, however, by proceedings dated 21.06.2005, the writ petitioners as well as the second respondent were promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. The said promotions were made on temporary basis under Rule 10(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and the promotion of the second respondent was a conditional one, namely, a condition was imposed that the second respondent must pass the said tests within a period of one year, during the period of probation. The next higher post to that of Senior Assistant is Sheristadar. As per the recruitment regulations framed under G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 27.04.2006, the method of appointment for the post of Sheristadar is by promotion of Senior Assistant of Category-II. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2007, by which the second respondent was promoted to the post of Sheristadar, the writ petitioners ﬁled the writ petition. The learned single Judge, while recording a ﬁnding that the promotion of the second respondent to the post of Senior Assistant was a conditional one, and in absence of any fresh order for promotion on compliance of conditions, held that the second respondent cannot be treated senior to that of the writ petitioners and set aside the order of promotion of the second respondent. Hence, the present appeal. 4. We have heard Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the ﬁrst respondent and Sri A. Sudershan Reddy for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 5. It is the case of the appellant, i.e. the second respondent in the writ petition, that he is senior to that of the writ petitioners, i.e. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, and therefore his promotion is in accordance with the Rules. It is submitted by Sri S. Satyam Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant had already passed the tests which are required to hold the post of Senior Assistant and he was recruited at an earlier point in time in the initial category and as he is the senior-most in the category in Zone-VI, there is no illegality in promoting him to the post of Sheristadar. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, the writ petitioners, that there is no basis for the claim of the appellant herein that he is senior to that of the writ petitioners. It is submitted that in the initial promotion order to the post of Senior Assistant as well as in the gradation list, the writ petitioners are shown seniors to that of the appellant herein, and therefore, it is not open for the ﬁrst respondent herein to appoint the appellant to the post of Sheristadar, which is a promotion post. 7. The learned Government Pleader for the ﬁrst respondent has produced records relating to the promotion of the appellant herein and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to the post of Senior Assistant, the gradation list prepared in the cadre of Senior Assistant and also the proceedings by which the appellant herein was promoted to the post of Sheristadar. 8. It is not in dispute that the services of the appellant as well as Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are governed by Andhra Pradesh District Consumer Fora (Subordinate Service) Rules, 2006. So far as the post of Sheristadar is concerned, it is a promotion post by promotion of Senior Assistant of Category-II. In the proceedings relating to the promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, the writ petitioners are shown at Sl.Nos.2 & 3 whereas the second respondent in the writ petition is shown at Sl.No.4. Even in the gradation list prepared with regard to Zone-VI candidates, the writ petitioners are shown at Sl.Nos.5 and 6, whereas the second respondent in the writ petition is shown at Sl.No.7. It is fairly submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the ﬁrst respondent herein that no other seniority list is prepared in the category of Senior Assistant. 9. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant, i.e. the second respondent in the writ petition, is senior to that of the writ petitioners, i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, however, there is no seniority list prepared yet, in the cadre of Senior Assistant. As much as the post of Sheristadar is a promotion post by promotion of Senior Assistant of Category-II, the ﬁrst respondent ought to have prepared a ﬁnal seniority list in the category of Senior Assistant before eﬀecting promotion to the post of Sheristadar. The proceedings of the ﬁrst respondent, by which the appellant herein is promoted, were issued on the premise that the appellant herein is the senior-most candidate. The said proceedings were issued erroneously in absence of any seniority list in the category of Senior Assistant. When the post of Sheristadar is a promotion post, seniority alone would be the criterion while eﬀecting promotions to the said post. Therefore, the promotion of the appellant as Sheristadar cannot be sustained in the absence of any seniority list prepared in that regard. It is to be noted that the appellant herein was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant by proceedings dated 21.06.2005 by imposing a condition to the eﬀect that he must pass the aforementioned tests within a period of one year, during the period of probation. However, by the said date, the writ petitioners had already passed all the said tests. It is the claim of the appellant that he passed the said tests within the time stipulated in the order promoting him to the post of Senior Assistant. However, in absence of any seniority list prepared in the category of Senior Assistant, we do not ﬁnd any illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge, setting aside the order of promotion dated 28.02.2007, by which the appellant herein was promoted to the post of Sheristadar. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we dispose of the writ appeal, conﬁrming the order of the learned single Judge to the extent of setting aside the order dated 28.02.2007, by which the appellant herein was promoted to the post of Sheristadar, with a direction to the ﬁrst respondent to prepare a ﬁnal seniority list in the cadre of Senior Assistant by giving opportunity to all the concerned. After preparation of the seniority list, the vacant posts of Sheristadars are to be ﬁlled in accordance with the rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 27.04.2006. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. September ,2008 MRR