*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH +WRIT PETITION NO. 12224 OF 2005 %25.08.2010 #T. Ganganna S/o Ganganna aged 49 years, working as Training Officer , ITI, Government Institution for Minorities Cuddapah District. ….petitioner Vs. $ The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Labour Employment and Technical Education (TRG-I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others …. Respondents !Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Surender Rao Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Services III <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. 1990 (4) SLR 267 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 12224 OF 2005 Between: T. Ganganna ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary., Labour Employment and Technical Education (TRG-I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others ...RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to order dated 29.4.2005 made in O.A.No. 3536 of 2003 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal and quash the same as illegal and further declare that Note under Rule 2 of A.P. Craftsmen Training Service Rules (Gazetted) issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 1416, Labour Employment and Technical Education (Training I Department) dated 19.12.1977 in so far as it pertains to promotions to the post of Principals of other I.T.Is providing for rotation among persons with different qualifications as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the applicant in O.A.No. 3536 of 2003. He was appointed as Assistant Training Officer on 20.7.1997 and his services in the said post were regularized with effect from 18.9.1979. It is stated that he was further promoted as Deputy Training Officer on 8.8.1990 and was further promoted as Training Officer on 10.12.1998. The official respondent, one Sri D. R. K. Raju was appointed as Assistant Training Officer on 29.6.1981 and his services in that post were regularized with effect from 1.8.1983 and he was promoted as Deputy Training Officer on 1.3.1986. It is stated that he was further promoted as Training Officer on 17.10.1987 and by the impugned proceedings dated 29.3.2003 he was promoted as Assistant Director (Trg) in DLTC/ITIs class-IV. He was given posting as Assistant Director, DLTC, Guduru but he did not join the promotion post of Assistant Director. The petitioner-applicant filed O.A with the following prayer: “(a) to declare Note under Rule 2 of A.P. Craftsmen Training Service (Gazetted) Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 1416, Labour, Employment and Technical Education (TRG.I) Department, dated 19.12.977 in so far as it pertains to promotions to the post of principals of other I.T.I s., providing for rotation among persons with different qualifications as illegal and arbitrary and further declare that similarly Note under Rule 2 of the above Rules pertaining to promotion/appointment to the post of Assistant Director (D.L.T.Cs) providing for rotation among the persons with different qualifications a illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (b) to declare that the respondents shall follow vertical seniority (from or in the category of ATOs) for the purpose of promotions to the post of Principals of other I.T.Is., or Assistant Director, DLTC and that seniority list prepared on the basis of dates of appointment in the category of Training Officer on the basis of dates of appointment of Training Officer as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India ; and (c ) Consequently declare that promotion of unofficial respondent to the post of Assistant Director without considering the case of the applicant is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India..” The applicant is challenging the Note under Rule 2 of the A.P. Craftsmen Training Service Rules issue in G.O.Ms.No. 1416, Labour, Employment and Technical Education (TRG.I) Department, dated 19.12.1977. For ready reference, the impugned Note under Rule 2 of the said Rules, relates to the post of Principal of the Industrial Training Institutions, reads as under: “Note: In a cycle of 4 vacancies, the first vacancy shall be filled in with Degree holder in the category of Assistant Director, District Level Training Centre and Group Instructors/Junior Assistant Apprenticeship Adviser (Class- III Category 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Technical Education Sub-ordinate Service); the 2nd vacancy shall be filled in with a Diploma holder in the category of Assistant Director, District Level Training Centre, the 3rd vacancy shall be filled in with Diploma holder in the category of Group Instructor/Junior Assistant Apprenticeship Adviser (Class-III category 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Technical Education sub-ordinate Service); the 4th vacancy shall be filled in with a Certificate holder.” There is another note with regard to the post of Assistant Director (Training) in District Level Training Centre , which reads as under: “Note: In a cycle of 4 vacancies first vacancy shall be filled in with Degree holder in the category of Group Instructor/Junior Assistant Apprenticeship Advisor/ Surveyors. (Class-III Category of the Andhra Pradesh Technical Education Sub-ordinate Service) Second vacancy shall be filled in with a Diploma holder in the category of Group Instructor/Junior Assistant Apprenticeship Adviser/ Surveyors (Class III category 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Technical Education Sub-ordinate Service). Third vacancy shall be filled in with Certificate holders in the category of Group Instructors Industrial Training Institutes/District Level Training Centre, Fourth vacancy shall be filled in with Diploma holders in the category of Instructor, District Level Training Centre”. The petitioner-applicant placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. DR. N. RAMACHANDRA RAO AND OTHRS[1] with regard to vertical seniority but the judgment relied on by the applicant deals with the case of the A.P. Medical and Health Services which is not at all relevant to the facts of the present Writ Petition. The petitioner herein has to make a transition from a Subordinate service to State Service and the posts in the Subordinate service are borne in the zonal or multi zonal cadres there cannot be any comparison of seniority. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contention of the petitioner-applicant did not disclose any cause of action at this juncture and he has also not placed any material based on which his relief can be granted and the challenge brought out by the applicant to the Rules has no merit and accordingly dismissed the O.A. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has not considered the matter in proper perspective and that the posts of Principals of other I.T.I s and the posts of Assistant Directors of D.L.T.C. are organized into multizonal cadres. In such situation counting the seniority on the strength of the date of promotion to the post of E.O., is illegal and arbitrary. He also submits that for the purpose of promotion to administrative post the seniority is liable to be counted on the principle of vertical seniority. As seen from the record, the petitioner-applicant joined the service as Assistant Training Officer on 20.7.1997 and he was promoted as Training Officer on 10.12.1998. On the other hand, the un-official respondent was appointed as Assistant Training Officer on 29.6.1981 and he was promoted as Training Officer on 17.10.1987. The un official respondent belongs to Zone-I and the petitioner-applicant belongs to Zone-IV. The post of Training Officer is a zonal post whereas the post of Principal is a multi-zonal post. Multi-zone-I consists of Zones I &II, Multi-Zone II consists of Zones III&IV and multi-zone III consists of Zones V, VI, and VII. According to Rules governing Gazetted Service issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 1416 , Labour, Employment & Technical Education (TRG.I) Department, dated 19.12.1977, a distinct pattern is found. For instance, for promotion to the post of Principal, Industrial Training Institution, a Degree Holder with one year experience will be considered eligible for promotion. On the other hand, a Diploma holder needs Six years experience and a Certificate holder needs 10 years experience in the lower level post before they can be considered for promotion to the post of Principal of Industrial Training Institutions and similar distinction is to be found throughout the service rules. Therefore, based on a combination of academic qualifications and experience, promotional opportunities are sought to be provided under the Rules without depriving of any particular category the opportunity for being promoted, based on the initial academic qualification, and provided they gain sufficient experience. Be that as it may, in this particular case, the petitioner- applicant is questioning the seniority and promotion of an individual who belongs to not only a different zone, but also different multi-zone. The question with regard to intra-zonal seniority is no longer res integra. It is now well settled that an individual belonging to one zone cannot question the seniority of an individual belonging to a different zone. It cannot be called fortuitous from a legalistic point of view in view of the mandatory provisions under Article 371-D of the Constitution of India and the Presidential Order, 1975, which was a direct consequence of the special provisions under the said Article 371-D of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the O.A. observing that the applicant did not disclose any cause of action and he has also not placed any material based on which his relief can be granted. In view of the above, we see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. CHANDRAIAH , J DATE: 25.08.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] 1990 (4) SLR 267