IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 9361 of 1999 Between: G.Rajendran, S/o Govinda Raju, R/o Chittoor. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Transco. Limited, Rep. by its Director, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Supdt. Engineer, Operation, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 The Divisional Engineer, Operation, Chittoor, 4 V.Thyagaraja Reddy, Comml. Sub-Divn. Chittoor, R/o Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the actio of the Res. No.3 in issuing Memo NO.DE/D/CTR/101/S1/D.NP.2510/99 dt:20-4-99 promoting the 4th respondent without considerding the representation dt:17-4-99 of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and also violative of the Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Impugned Memo No.DE/D/CTR/101/S1/D.NO.2510/99 dt:20-4-99 of the 3rd respondent and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Line Inspector, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.RATTAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following Order: Aggrieved by the action of the official respondents in promoting the fourth respondent without considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Line Inspector, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner was placed under suspension while he was working in West Section, Chittoor as lineman. While he was under suspension, the official respondents constituted a departmental promotion committee to consider the cases of eligible linemen for promotion to the post of Line Inspector. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents issued proceedings dated 19-08-2000, whereby the petitioner was imposed the punishment of being placed at the last rank of lineman as on the date of rejoining the duty. As a result of the said order, the petitioner can no longer claim to be senior to the fourth respondent, and as such, he would not be entitled for promotion as Line Inspector or for having the promotion of the fourth respondent set aside. Sri P.Rathaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, would however, draw the attention of this Court to B.P. (P&G-Per.)Ms.No.181 dated 04-07-1992, whereunder it is stated that even in cases where major punishment is awarded, the case of an employee can be considered by the departmental promotion committee only after expiry of the period of three years from the date of awarding the punishment. Learned counsel would submit that since the punishment was imposed in August, 2000 and the three years period expired in August, 2003, the petitioner’s case ought to have been considered for promotion as Line Inspector. It is necessary to note that the order of punishment was passed on 19-08-2000 and that the petitioner’s claim to be considered for promotion from August, 2003 are both subsequent to filing of the writ petition. In a writ petition filed in the year 1999, it is not for this Court to examine the question whether the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion as Line Inspector in the year 2003, more so, when no such relief has been sought for by way of an application to amend the prayer in the writ petition. Leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedies available to him in law, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________ 26-03-2008 usd To 1 The Director, Andhra Pradesh Transco Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Supdt. Engineer, Operation, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 The Divisional Engineer, Operation, Chittoor,. 4 Two CD copies.