IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2212 of 2007 Between: S.Sarvesh Kumar, s/o late Padmanabhan, I Additional District Court, Srikakulam, residing at Door No.7-5-4, Batchayyapeta Street, Srikakulam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The High Court of A.P., Hyderabad represented by its Registrar Administration. 2 The District Judge-Srikakulam, Srikakulam. 3 M.L.N.Murthy, s/o late Venkata Subba Rao, O/o Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District. 4 N.Prasad Rao, s/o late Ramulu, O/o Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Srikakulam. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring order dated 22-12-2006 issued vide Dis.No.6514 dated 23-12-2006 including the proceedings in Dis.No.4501 dated 19-9-2005 of the second respondent as illegal and arbitrary (ii) declare the proceedings in ROC No.1783/2001/C1/1 dated 21-12-2001 of the Registrar Administration including order dated 1-6-2001 of the second respondent as illegal and contrary to Rule 9 of the A.P. J.M.S.Rules (iii) consequently declare that the petitioner is senior to unoﬃcial respondents and others whose services were regularized in terms of proceedings No.P.R.No.28/93-A dated 28-4-1993 in Dis.No.4065 dated 29-4-1993 with all consequential beneﬁts including promotion to the higher post and pass other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: (SC FOR APHC),P.V.SANJAY KUMAR The Court made the following order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2212 of 2007 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Process Server on 20.10.1983 in the unit of the District Judge, Chittoor. Subsequently he was appointed by transfer as Steno-Typist on 01.12.1983, which is a post in category 5 Division IV of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 1964 (1964 Rules, for brevity). He completed his probation with eﬀect from 31.01.1986. He requested the High Court for transfer to Srikakulam. The request was acceded to. He joined as Steno- Typist (re-designated as Personal Assistant) in Srikakulam District on 02.03.1988. He requested to ﬁx his seniority from that date below approved probationers in the category of Personal Assistant in Srikakulam. In the meanwhile the District Judge, Srikakulam, by proceedings dated 28.04.1993 provisionally regularised as many as 102 judicial ministerial employees in the cadres of Junior Assistants (Lower Divisional Clerks), Typists and Steno-Typists with eﬀect from the respective dates on which they were appointed. It appears that in case of the petitioner the date of regularisation was shown on 01.12.1983. Feeling aggrieved by this, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 made a representation to the District Judge to correct the same as 02.03.1988, the date on which the petitioner joined in Srikakulam unit. As a result of such consideration, the learned District Judge declared the seniority of the petitioner with effect from 02.03.1988, aggrieved by which the petitioner made an appeal to the High Court. By order dated 21.12.2001 the appeal was rejected. Yet another representation dated 19.09.2005 made by the petitioner for ﬁxing his seniority below the approved probationers was rejected and he was informed that he shall be placed in the seniority list at serial No.118/A of 2003 between M/s K. Appalaramanna and M.G. Sankararao. Not satisfying with the same the petitioner sought review of the said order dated 27.09.2005 which was rejected by the learned District Judge on 22.12.2006. This is assailed in instant writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on the explanation to Rule 32 of 1964 Rules read with Rule 33 thereof and contends that respondent Nos.3 and 4 were not regularised in the respective service when the petitioner joined on 02.03.1988 in Srikakulam unit and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been placed fore and above respondent Nos.3 and 4. This is opposed by the learned standing counsel. He contends that even though respondent Nos.3 and 4 and others were regularised by proceedings dated 28.04.1993, the regularisation dates back the date of initial appointment and therefore, ﬁxation of seniority of the petitioner at serial No.118/A of 2003 is proper. This Court has perused the relevant orders in the light of 1964 Rules. The explanation to Rule 32 of 1964 Rules is to the eﬀect that a member of the service who is transferred at his own request from one unit to another shall for the purpose of this sub-rule, be treated as junior to all probationers appointed in the new unit prior to joining that unit, notwithstanding the fact that he is already an approved probationer or will complete probation earlier than the other probationers in that unit. A perusal of the proceedings dated 28.04.1993 issued by the learned District Judge, whereby and whereunder 102 judicial ministerial employees were regularised, would show that all of them are provisionally regularised and the order is silent as to whether their probation was declared or not from the dates as shown therein. Further it appears that all of them were temporary promotees and/or temporary direct recruitees and their service was regularised. The dates on which they commenced probation and other details are not available from the proceedings. In this background we are not able to arrive at a conclusion as to whether Rules 32 and 33 of 1964 Rules were contravened while ﬁxing the gradation list of judicial ministerial employees. Furthermore the petitioner has directly approached this Court without availing the alternative remedy of making a representation/appeal to the High Court. We are of the considered opinion as a ﬁrst step petitioner must avail remedy and then seek judicial review. Accordingly we dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal to the High Court for redressal of his grievance. Four weeks time is granted to the petitioner to make appeal to the High Court. No costs. ____________ V.V.S.RAO, J 30th July, 2008 __________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J GHN To 1 The High Court of A.P., Hyderabad represented by its Registrar Administration. 2 The District Judge-Srikakulam, Srikakulam. 3 M.L.N.Murthy, s/o late Venkata Subba Rao, O/o Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District. 4 N.Prasad Rao, s/o late Ramulu, O/o Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Srikakulam. 5 Two CD copies. Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}