THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12885 of 1998 Dated 22-01-2008 Between: D.P.Nandam, Traffic Inspector, Gr-I, APSRTC, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus Depot, Jeedimetla depot, R.R. District & others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12885 of 1998 O R D E R: Questioning his non-selection to the post of Traffic Inspector Grade-I (for short ‘T.I.Gr.I’) for the years 1994-95, the petitioner herein filed W.P.Nos.24193 of 1995 & 16938 of 1996 and the Division Bench, by order dated 23-09-1997, passed the following order: “The principal allegation of the petitioner against the respondents is that they have not considered his case by applying mind and by following the correct procedure laid down and also according to its own circulars issued in that regard. In this view of the matter, we think it is just and proper to dispose of these writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion if he is otherwise entitled to from the date of his juniors being promoted to the said post. The petitioner has to make a representation in this regard to the respondent-authorities within a period of three months from this day. On such representation being received, the authorities to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within three months thereafter. With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.” Pursuant thereto, the first respondent, vide proceedings dated 26-03-1998, after taking note of the representation of the petitioner dated 06-10-1997, held that the post of T.I.Gr.I was a selection post and that selection was based on seniority-cum-suitability. The first respondent further held that selection to the post of T.I.Gr.I was by the appropriate Selection Committee on perusal of the records as well as interview adhering to the procedure of such selection, that in the selection held in December, 1994, the petitioner was not upto the standard of selection as he could not secure the minimum qualifying marks required for selection and that the Selection Committee found him not upto the standard of selection. The first respondent observed that, in that selections, 10 other T.I.Gr.II, who were seniors to the petitioner, were also not selected as they could not secure the qualifying marks. The first respondent further observed that the criteria for selection being the same in the subsequent selections held in 1995-96, the petitioner did not come upto the standard even in those selections, that the employees, who were juniors to the petitioner, were promoted as T.I.Gr.I based on the selections held in December, 1994, November, 1995 and July 1996, by virtue of their suitability and that they were selected for promotion on their obtaining qualifying marks and hence, the petitioner could not claim promotion on par with his juniors. The first respondent also noted that in the selections held on 20-03-1997 for promotion to the post of T.I.Gr.I, after following the procedure, which was adopted in the previous selections, the petitioner was selected and promoted as T.I.Gr.I w.e.f. 06-04-1997 as he was upto the standard of selection this time. In the present writ petition, the petitioner questions this order and contends that he was entitled to be promoted in the earlier selections held in the year 1994 or atleast in the year 1995. Sri P.Kamalakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would take this Court through the criteria of selection to contend that in the year 1994, no marks were awarded to the petitioner towards reward and appreciation. He would rely on one such letter of appreciation wherein the work done by the petitioner was commended. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioner was given 48 marks only to deprive him of selection and that, if his performance was assessed properly, he would have secured minimum merit of 50% marks, which would have entitled him to be selected, along with his juniors, who were selected in the year 1994. Since the selections for the year 1994 and 1995 were the subject matter of challenge before the earlier Division Bench, in W.P.Nos.24193 of 1995 & 16938 of 1996 dated 23-09-1997, it is only to the limited extent that the Division Bench of this Court had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion would he be entitled to have his case considered. While it is true that the petitioner had contended before the Division Bench that he was denied promotion though he was fully qualified and eligible to be promoted as T.I.Gr.I and that the respondents had acted arbitrarily in promoting his juniors, the Division Bench did not advert to these contentions and had merely directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner if he was otherwise entitled to promotion from the date his juniors were promoted and in addition, the respondents were directed to consider the representation of the petitioner which he was permitted to make, and to pass appropriate orders thereon. The impugned order of the first respondent dated 26-03-1998 is the order passed on the representation filed by the petitioner. The Division Bench had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion “if he was otherwise entitled to from the date his juniors were promoted to the said post”. The word “otherwise” in the order can only mean, apart from the earlier selections held, and since the respondents in the impugned order have clearly stated that juniors to the petitioner were promoted only because they secured the minimum merit, it cannot be said that the petitioner was “otherwise” entitled to be promoted from the date his juniors were promoted. The contention with regards the merit of the selection held in the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 cannot be examined afresh in this writ petition as it was the subject matter of writ petitions before the Division Bench. Since the Division Bench had merely directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, if he was otherwise entitled to, and as it is evident that the petitioner was otherwise not entitled for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, the petitioner cannot again seek to reagitate the validity of selections held in the years 1994, 1995 & 1996 in the present writ petition. His challenge to the earlier selections held in 1994 and 1995 must, therefore, fail. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________ 22-01-2008 usd