IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16065 of 1999 Between: K.V. Vaikunta Rao, S/o. Krishna Murthy, Society Ltd. No. B 1539, Kasimkote, Visakhapatnam District, now working at Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam - cum- person-in-charge, Anakapalle Rural Electric Co-operative Society Limited No. B-1539, Kasimkota. 2 The Anakapalle Rural Electric Co-Operative Society Limited, Rep., by its Managing Director, Kasimkota, Visakhapatnam District 3 Sri P.V.E. Satyanarayana, Anakapalle Rural Electric Co-Operative Society Limited, Kasmikota, Munagapaka, Visakhapatnam District. 4 Sri K.N.R. Swamy, Anakapalle Rural Electric Co-Operative Society Limited, Kasimkota at Paravada, Visakhapatnam District. 5 Sri T. Ramu Naidu, Anakapalle Rural Electric Co-Operative Society Limited, Kasimkota at Paravada, Visakhapatnam District. 6 Sri S. Surya Rao, Anakapalle Rural Electric Co-Operative Society Limited, Kasimkota, Visakhapatnam District. 7 Smt. T.J. Koramma, Anakapalle Rural Electric Co-Operative Society Limited, Kasimkota, Visakhapatnam District. 8 The Commissioner of Co-Operation and Registrar of Co- Operation Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents 1 & 2 herein in not restoring the seniority of the petitioner in the category of Senior Assistants over the above the respondents 3 to 7 and not restoring the seniority of the petitioner over Junior Asst. and Bill Collectors as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Art.14 and 16 of the constitution of India and consequentially direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to restore the Seniority of the petitioner with all consequential and monetary benefits and consequentially direct the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner as Account by reverting one of the respondents 3, 4 and 5 by implementing the orders of the Commissioner of Co-Operation and Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad issued in Rc.66101/95 N2 dt.15.6. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. A.V. Sesha Sai Counsel for Respondents 1 and 8: G.P., Cooperation The Court made the following: Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not restoring his seniority over and above respondents 3 to 7 in the category of Senior Assistants as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The petitioner as well as respondents 3 to 7 are working in the second respondent society. Whereas the petitioner was appointed as Bill Collector, respondents 3 to 7 were appointed as Junior Assistants. For promotion to the post of Assistant, the feeder category is common from the post of Bill collector as well as Junior Assistant. Respondents 3 to 7 who were working as Junior Assistants were promoted to the post of Assistant by the Managing Director of the second respondent society by office order dated 17-10-1988. 3. Though the petitioner questioned the said order along with four others at an earlier point of time in W.P.No.16544 of 1988, this court did not set aside the said order, but merely directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner herein for promotion to the post of Assistant in the existing vacancy. Thereupon, the petitioner was also promoted to the post Assistant. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though respondents 3 to 7 did not put in qualifying service in the feeder category, they were promoted to the post of Assistant illegally, ignoring his case; as such, he is entitled to be declared as senior to that of respondents 3 to 7 in the category of Assistant as well as Junior Assistant. 5. Though there is appearance on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 to 7, no counter affidavit is filed. Learned Government Pleader has appeared for respondents 1 and 8. 6. The petitioner is claiming seniority over respondents 3 to 7 mainly on the ground that though the said persons are not qualified to be promoted to the post of Assistant, they have been illegally promoted ignoring his claim. But, fact remains that the promotion of respondents 3 to 7 to the post of Assistant from the post of Junior Assistant, by order dated 17-10-1988, is still in force. Though the said promotion was questioned in W.P.No.16544 of 1988, no order was passed setting aside the same. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant pursuant to the order in the said writ petition much later to the promotion of respondents 3 to 7 as Assistants. As much as the order dated 17- 10-1988 promoting respondents 3 to 7 has become final, there is no basis for the claim of the petitioner that he should be declared as senior to that of respondents 3 to 7 in the cadre of Assistant. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, no declaration as prayed for can be given and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. January 21, 2009 MRR