THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.1996 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 23.01.2009 passed in O.A.No.518 of 2007 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows; The petitioner joined in the service of the Indian Railways as Track Maintainer Grade-III on 15.02.1993 and subsequently, he was promoted as Track Maintainer Grade-II, Grade-I, Junior Engineer Grade-II and eventually as Junior Engineer Grade-I in the Track Machine Organisation. While he was working as Track Maintainer Grade-II, he appeared for the written test held on 29.05.1999 to the post of Junior Engineer Grade-II against 25% quota earmarked for being filled up by those who appear and succeed in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (for short ‘LDCE’) in the Track Machine Organization of the Civil Engineering Department of the Railways. He passed the said test and subjected to viva voce on 13.10.1999. Based on the performance of the candidates, the third respondent issued a provisional panel vide memorandum dated 18.01.2000 consisting of seven employees against the unreserved vacancies and one Scheduled Caste employee against a reserved vacancy. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he passed the test and subjected to viva voce, his name was not included in the said provisional panel pertaining to reserved vacancy. Therefore, he made a representation dated 05.04.2003 to the respondents and the same was rejected vide letter dated 29.05.2003 to the effect that the panel was issued vide memorandum dated 18.01.2000 as per the extant instructions and it was in order. While so, the petitioner was promoted as Junior Engineer Grade-II against 25% departmental quota vide proceedings dated 28.11.2003 and is working as such. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 24.02.2006 to the second respondent to revise the seniority list of Junior Engineer Grade-I and to include his name after one B.S.Prakash Rao, who was promoted as Junior Engineer Grade-II in the panel dated 18.01.2000 on the ground that the department has not followed the relevant instructions while empanelling the candidates in 2000 LDCE examination and the same was rejected vide letter dated 09.06.2006. Aggrieved by the same, he filed O.A.No.518 of 2007 before the Tribunal, which in turn dismissed the same vide order dated 23.01.2009, against which, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal ought to have relied upon the instructions in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in R.K.SABHARWAL V. STATE OF PUNJAB[1] wherein it was held as under: “ When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken that the posts shown at the reserve points are to be filled from amongst the members of reserve categories and the candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered for the reserve posts. On the other hand the reserve category candidates can compete for the non-reserve posts and in the event of their appointment to the said posts their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation. Under Article 16(4) it is, incumbent on the State Government to reach a conclusion tat the backward class/classes for which the reservation is made is not adequately represented in the State Services. While doing so the State Government may take the total population of a particular backward class and its representation in the State Services. When the State Government after doing the necessary exercise makes the reservation and provides the extent of percentage of posts to be reserved for the said backward class then the percentage has to be followed strictly. The prescribed percentage cannot be varied or changed simply because some of the members of the backward class have already been appointed/promoted against the general seats. The roster point which is reserved for backward class has to be filled by way of appointment/promotion of the member of the said class. No general category candidate can be appointed against a slot in the roster which is reserved for the backward class. The fact that considerable number of members of a backward class have been appointed/promoted against general seats in the State Services may be a relevant factor for the State Government to review the question for continuing reservation for the said class but so long as the instructions/Rules providing certain percentage of reservations for the backward classes are operative the same have to be followed. Despite any number of appointees/promotees belonging to the backward classes against the general category posts the given percentage has to be provided in addition. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted as Junior Engineer Grade-II against 25% departmental quota vide proceedings dated 28.11.2003 and is working as such. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the representation dated 24.02.2006 seeking to revise the seniority list of Junior Engineer Grade-II and include his name in the panel of 2000. This shows that the petitioner approached the respondents after six years of issuance of panel. He ought to have challenged the said panel immediately. Further, the petitioner except stating that the respondents have not followed the relevant instructions while empanelling the candidates in 2000 LDCE examination, he has not produced any material either before the Tribunal or before this Court. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the respondents have rightly rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner. However, it is to be noted that the officials, who were promoted as per the panel of 2000 as Junior Engineers Grade-II, were subsequently promoted to higher Grade. At this stage, the petitioner cannot seek the relief of inclusion of his name in the panel of 2000. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A. on the ground of latches on the part of the petitioner and the same cannot be interfered with by this Court. 5. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:15.02.2010 sj [1] AIR 1995 SC 1371