IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13801 of 1999 Between: 1 Chief Post Master General, Dept of Posts, Govt of India AP. Circle, Hyderabad 2 The Post Master General, Eastern Region, Vijayawada 3 Superintendent of Post officers, Machilipatnam-1, Krishna Dist 4 Post master, Machilipatnam Krishan Dist 5 Manager (Motor Mail Services) Hyderabad , Koti ..... PETITIONERS AND B.Bheemeshwara Rao, s/o. Anjaneyulu Superintendent of Post Officers, Machilipathnam Division, Machilipatnam, Krishna Dist. .....RESPONDENT 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 a writ or order or direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certionrari, calling for records in OA.NO.254/1996 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and quash the order dt. 8/01/1999 in the said O.A. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. A. RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST. SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. VEMURIVENKATESWARA RAO The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LOBIS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13801 of 1999 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Swaroop Reddy) The petitioners, who are the respondents in O.A. filed this writ petition questioning the Order dated 08-01-1999 in O.A. No.254 of 1996 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) The relevant facts are that the respondent herein who is the applicant in the O.A. was appointed as Class-IV employee of Group-D Mailman under the 3rd petitioner herein with effect from 03-03-1982. Subsequently, after the selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 18-07-1983, he was temporarily appointed as Mail Motor Service Driver in the ordinary grade in the month of July, 1983. After completion of the probation period, he was transferred and posted at Tadepalligudem in the year 1990, from there he was promoted to the next higher category of Grade-II driver in the scale of pay of Rs.1200- 1800 with effect from 01-08-1993 by order No. ST/24/MMS, dated 02-11-1994. He was appointed in Quasi Permanent Capacity earlier in the scale of pay of Rs.260-400 by proceedings dated 02-09- 1987. Later, a promotion scheme was introduced for staff car drivers with effect from 01-08-1993. As per the said scheme, some drivers were promoted to the post of Grade-II drivers in the scale of pay of Rs.1200-1800 and to get further promotion to Grade-I, a staff car driver should have a minimum service of six years in Grade-II. The promotion for Grade-I and Grade-II drivers was subject to passing of the Grade Test. The 2nd petitioner herein by proceedings dated 02-11-1994 promoted the applicant as Mail Motor Service Driver Grade-II in the scale of pay of Rs.1200-1800 with effect from 01-08-1993 and was placed as first promotee in the seniority list of candidates in Grade-II and was paid arrears with effect from 01-08-1993 along with others who were promoted at the same time. From 02-11-1994, for a period of more than two years, the applicant discharged duties in the cadre of Grade-II Mail Motor Service Driver without any adverse remarks. While so, he was served with a show cause notice dated 05-10-1995 calling for his explanation for canceling his promotion on the ground that the applicant’s seniority was erroneously fixed in Circle Gradation List. The applicant submitted his detailed explanation. But the 1st petitioner herein, without taking into consideration his explanation, passed the impugned order dated 08-01-1996. Before the Tribunal, it was the contention of the present petitioners that initially the post of drivers was controlled by the division. Later it was controlled by the circles by issuing the circle seniority list. The applicant was given seniority on the basis of his date of entry to the quasi permanent post as Grade-III driver. But on the basis of that date, he was found to be junior and as such he was reverted by the impugned order dated 08-01-1996, as there were seniors who were confirmed earlier to the applicant. It was also the contention of the present petitioners before the Tribunal that the date of confirmation decides the seniority. The Tribunal after referring to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association vs. State of Maharastra[1] held that fixing the seniority on the basis of the date of confirmation is not acceptable and the date of entry of the applicant shall be taken into consideration for fixing his seniority as ordinary driver i.e., with effect from July, 1983. It was also the contention of the petitioners herein that there were 102 posts of drivers in the circle for filling up. Out of which, 20 posts were treated as Grade-I, 26 posts were treated as Grade-II and 56 posts were treated as Grade-III in the ratio of 55:25:20. The applicant could not come within 26 posts to be filled as Grade-II drivers from amongst the staff car drivers on the basis of the seniority reckoned from the date of confirmation. He was earlier promoted erroneously taking his seniority on the basis of his quasi permanent status, and hence, a show cause notice was issued and he was reverted by the impugned order dated 08-01-1996. The Tribunal, considering the material facts, has set aside the impugned order dated 08-01-1996. The Tribunal made it clear that the applicant should be deemed to have continued as Gr.II Driver from the date he was reverted by the impugned order dated 08-01-1996 and the consequential benefit of seniority in the Grade of Driver Gr.II should be fixed on the basis of his entry as driver Gr.II i.e. w.e.f.01-08-1993. The learned counsel for the Central Government contends that the respondent/applicant was erroneously promoted by wrongly reckoning his seniority and the same was against the rules. The applicant was conferred in quasi permanent status with effect from 27-07-1986 and his services were confirmed by orders dated 08-02-1990 with effect from 01-04-1988. But taking into consideration the date on which the applicant was conferred quasi permanent status as date of confirmation, he was fixed at serial Number 34 of the Circle Gradation List and given promotion to the post of MMS Driver Grade-II with effect from 01.08.1993. Thus, he was erroneously continuing in the promoted post and the mistake occurred only on the part of the Department in wrongly reckoning the seniority of the applicant, but not on account of any mischief committed by the applicant. The learned counsel for the Government contends that there are seniors to the applicant and the applicant cannot be promoted. But as seen from the record, no affected person is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal. Considering the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, we are inclined to allow the applicant to continue in the promoted post from the date of his promotion. It is made clear that as the applicant is allowed to continue in the promoted post on account of the mistake committed by the Department, it shall not give him any advantage of seniority for the next promotion over persons actually senior to him. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J _______________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY,J Dated: 24.06.2009 Dsr/Kl .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 2. 2CCs to 2. 2CD copies [1] AIR 1990 SC 1607