IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.20478 of 1999 Between: S.Seetaramaiah S/o.Kesavulu Agricultural Market Committee, Ponnur, R/o.Repalle, Guntur Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Director of Marketing Government of Andhra Pradesh B.R.K.Bhavan, Hyderabad 2 Agricultural Market Committee rep.by its Chairman, Morrispet, Tenali, Guntur Dist 3 Assistant Director of Marketing Agricultural Market Committee Old Mirch Yard, Guntur, Guntur District ....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 set aside the Judgment and order of A.P.A.T. in OA.No.4185/92, Dt.13/7/1999 and to issue any order in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner as Supervisor from the date of his selection and appointment on 3/3/1976 and to promote the petitioner for the post of Supervisor on the basis of his seniority from 04/03/1976 and to grant all consequential benefits and pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.SURYA PRAKASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per C.V. RAMULU,J) This Writ Petition is directed against an Order dated 13-7-1999 made in O.A.No.4185 of 1992 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, wherein the application filed by the petitioner questioning the order of rejection of his request for appointment as Supervisor from 4-3-1976, was dismissed. It was the claim of the petitioner that he was directly appointed as Supervisor in the Agricultural Market Committee, Tenali; therefore, reverting him to the post of Clerk does not arise. The Tribunal, on appreciation of entire material placed before it, came to the conclusion that the petitioner continued to remain as Bid Clerk for fairly a long period i.e. from 1976 to 1992 and he never raised any objection as to his continuance in the post of Bid Clerk and under those circumstances, the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The very reason that the petitioner was continued as a Bid Clerk for more than 16 years would itself show that he was not appointed as a Supervisor in a regular vacancy, but he was only a Bid Clerk since the date of his appointment i.e. 5-10-1976 and no material was placed before the Tribunal to show that he worked as Supervisor at any later point of time or was appointed to such post. We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error, in passing the impugned Order, calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) June 12, 2008 ____________ (C.V. RAMULU,J) prk