THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.23032 of 2005 Date: 29-01-2008 Between 1. T.Subba Rao, S/o Thirupathaiah, aged 49 years, Technical Work Inspector, O/o the Deputy Executive Engineer (Panchayat Raj), Sattenapalli, Guntur District 2. P.Bhadrachalam S/o late Ramalingaiah, aged 54 years, Technical Work Inspector, O/o the Deputy Executive Engineer (PR), Sub-Division No.II, Guntur … Petitioners and 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.23032 of 2005 Oral Order: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners-applicants and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 17-8-2005, passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, at Hyderabad (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in dismissing O.A.No.1764 of 2001 filed by the applicants seeking to declare G.O.Rt.No.42, dated 10-01-2000 of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Estt.II) Department and the proceedings of seniority issued by respondent No.3 in Lr.No.EC.II/96-82, dated 30-10-2000, as illegal and arbitrary, and further to direct the respondents to follow the seniority list, dated 13-01-1999, prepared in consonance with the settled principles of law and rules. 3. The petitioners herein are applicants and the respondents are respondents in the O.A., before the Tribunal. 4. The only question that had fallen for consideration before the Tribunal as well as before this Court is as to whether the case of the individual can be considered for promotion to the post of Draughtsman Grade-III, from the date of appointment or from the date of passing the test. 5. It is borne out from the record that as on the date of selection to the post of Draughtsman Grade-III, the applicants were not qualified. In other words, they did not pass the qualifying test at all. Therefore, since it is a selection post, the settled law is that only those who acquired the qualification, as prescribed, as on the date of selection alone shall be considered but not otherwise. 6. A perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal would only reveal that this aspect had been elaborately considered and we do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the said order. The settled proposition had been rightly pointed out and elaborated by the Tribunal while dismissing the O.A. 7. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal and accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, confirming the impugned order of the Tribunal. No costs. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 29th January, 2008. Ak