THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.11585 of 2009 ORDER The petitioners are engaged as NMRs by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (TTD). Their services were regularized on 01.08.1991. Taking into account, the qualifications held by the petitioners, namely, ITI, they were appointed by transfer as Draughtsman Grade-II somewhere in the year 1996. They are seniors to respondent Nos.2 to 4 in the cadre of Draughtsman Grade-II. The post superior to that, is Draughtsman Grade-I. The first respondent promoted respondent No.4 in the year 2008 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the year 2009. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they are entitled to be promoted as Draughtsman Grade-I, compared to respondent Nos.2 to 4, the first respondent ignored their case. It is urged that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.225, dated 18.05.1999, exempting the Draughtsmen Grade-II, who have crossed 45 years of age, from the requirement of passing Accounts and PWD tests. They complained that the benefit under the said G.O., was not extended to them. The first respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioners were appointed as Draughtsman Grade- II on finding that they possess requisite qualification, but not promoted as Draughtsman Grade-I since they did not pass the Accounts test. The relevant rule is cited. It is also their case that G.O.Ms.No.225, dated 18.05.1999, is not applicable on the ground that the petitioners were already extended the benefit of exemption and that the G.O. was not adopted by TTD. Heard Sri E.Sambasiva Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned Special Standing Counsel for TTD. The petitioners started their career in TTD as NMRs. Their services were regularized in the year 1991, and thereafter, they have been appointed by transfer as Draughtsman Grade-II in the year 1996. There is no denial of the fact that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are juniors to the petitioners in that category. The service rules of TTD relating to engineering service prescribe the procedure for appointment/promotion to various posts. Draughtsman Grade-I occurs at item No.8. The posts can be filled either by direct recruitment or through promotion. The feeder cadre for promotion to that post is, Draughtsman Grade-II with minimum five years of service. They should hold LCE/ITI qualification and must have passed Accounts test for Executive Officers and PWD Officers. Admittedly, the petitioners did not fulfill those conditions. It is, no doubt, true that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.225, dated 18.05.1999, providing for exemption in favour of Draughtsman Grade-II from holding certain qualifications in the context of promotion to next higher post. It is also a fact that the first respondent extended the benefit under that G.O. to some of its employees through proceedings, dated 01.06.2000. The necessity for the fist respondent to consider the case of the petitioners with reference to the G.O., would have arisen if only the petitioners made a representation. Admittedly, no such representation was made. The petitioners proceed on the assumption that they are eligible to be promoted to the post of Draughtsman Grade-I. Unless the competent authority grants exemption, assuming that the G.O. is applicable, the petitioners cannot be treated as eligible. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to make a representation to the first respondent seeking exemption in terms of G.O.Ms.No.225, dated 18.05.1999. The first respondent shall consider the representation on its own merits and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months from the date of submission of the representation. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date:09.11.2010. SJ