IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14651 of 1999 Between: Smt. D.Padma W/o.Ananda Rao O/o.Asst.Director of Sericulture,Seethampeta Srikakulam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.Administrative Tribunal Rep.by its Registrar Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Sericulture Govt. of A.P Samrat Complex, 3rd Floor,Saifabad Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Joint Director Sericulture Visakhapatnam. 4 Asst.Director Sericulture Seethampeta Srikakulam Dist. 5 The Project Officer I.T.D.A Srikakulam Dist. 6 L.Laxmi Bai O/o.Asst.Director of Sericulture, Seethampeta Srikakulam Dist. .....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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari after calling the relevant record, the respondents 2 to 5 herein may be directed to promote the petitioner as 'Farm-Foreman' on par with the 6th respondent herein and other juniors with all consequential service benefits such as seniority, fixation of pay and arrears etc., by setting aside the order dated 26-11- 98 of the 1st respondent passed in O.A.No.81944//90 if necessary. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.M.PATRO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA W.P. No. 14651 of 1999 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 26.11.1998 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 81944 of 1990. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The petitioner herein filed the O.A. before the Tribunal seeking to declare the action of the respondents in promoting respondent No.5 therein in the Cadre of Farm-Foreman ignoring the seniority of the petitioner as illegal and void and for a further direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner to the cadre of Farm Foreman from a date not later than the date from which her immediate juniors were promoted as Farm Foreman with consequential benefits. Having considered the matter, the Tribunal directed the official respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Farm-Foreman, if she is fully qualified and eligible for such promotion along with others in the later vacancies arisen, if the applicant has not already been promoted by then. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is senior to 6th respondent herein and though she sought for a direction to the official respondents to promote her to the cadre of Farm Foreman from a date not later than the date from which her immediate juniors and respondent No.6 were promoted as Farm Foreman, the Tribunal has not considered the same in proper perspective. However, a perusal of the material available on record including the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 2 to 5 discloses that the 6th respondent is having six months practical experience in Mulberry Cultivation and Silk Worm Rearing which the petitioner did not possess as on the date of her appointment. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that vide G.O.Ms.No. 578 GAD dated 12.5.1961 to hold the post of ‘Operative’ the qualification prescribed is 4th class with six months practical experience in Mulberry cultivation and Silk Worm Rearing. It is further stated that though the petitioner is not having the said qualification, she was considered as she is S.T. candidate. It is also stated that vide proceedings No.125/89-G dated 28.12.1988 the seniority of the petitioner and the 6th respondent were fixed at Sl.No.20 and 1 respectively and after giving notice to the candidates and after receipt of the objections the final seniority was prepared in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, it is submitted, there is no illegality in fixing the seniority list and the respondent No.6 is senior to the petitioner and hence she was promoted as Form Foreman-II. Having perused the entire material available on record and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the petitioner is working as ‘Operative’ since 25.7.1984, we are of the considered view that it would suffice if a direction is given to the official respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Farm- Foreman, if not already considered. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. P.S. NARAYANA, J. Date: 08-04-2008. MVB.