THE HONOUABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.5704 of 1994 Between: K.P.V.Ramanujaiah. .. PETITIONER AND The Managing Director, A.P.Forest Development Corporation Limited and others. .. RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 30-10-1993, whereby respondents 2 to 4 were promoted as Assistant Estate Managers. Facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Exploitation Assistant in A.P. Forest Development Corporation on 16- 03-1979. He was promoted as Assistant Plantation Manager and in the year 1989, the said post of Assistant Plantation Manager was re-designated as Deputy Plantation Manager. Junior Supervisors, who were recruited in the year 1980, were promoted as Senior Supervisors in the year 1989. The channel of promotion to the post of Deputy Plantation Manager is from the post of Senior Supervisors. For the next higher post of Divisional Manager, the feeder posts are (1) Plantation Manager and (2) Assistant Estate Manager in the ratio of 3:1. A specific quota has been prescribed for each of the two feeder categories for promotion to the post of Divisional Manager. While three out of the four posts are earmarked for Plantation Managers, the fourth is set apart for Assistant Estate Managers. In such circumstances, the contention of Sri Ratna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the absence of a common seniority list of the Deputy Plantation Managers and Assistant Estate Managers, the Deputy Plantation Managers are being ignored at the cost of the Supervisors and that Supervisors are alone being sent for Forest Training, is of no consequence. A specific quota has been earmarked, for both Plantation Managers and Assistant Estate Managers, for promotion to the post of Divisional Managers. In case any of the Assistant Estate Managers have been promoted as Divisional Manager in excess of the quota earmarked for them, it is always open to the petitioner to question the same. The writ petition filed, placing reliance on rules, which apply to direct recruitment, is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ 21-02-2006 Prv