HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17491 of 2011 ORDER: Declaring the impugned proceedings of respondent No.2 in Memo No.HRD/IR/F.No.04/11/D.No.33/11, dated 11.01.2011, whereunder and whereby in ordering rectification of the seniority list in respect of respondent No.4 and directing respondent No.3 to comply as such, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition has been filed. The averments, in brief, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition may be stated as follows: All the petitioners were appointed in erstwhile APSE Board on regular basis. Prior to the formation of AP Transco and APEPDC Ltd., the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 was comprising of (1) Operation Division, Zone-I, Visakhapatnam (2) Operation Division, Zone-II, Visakhapatnam (3) Operation Division, Anakapalli (4) C & O Division, Paderu (5) MRT Division, Visakhapatnam and (6) TL&SS Division, at Gajuwaka. Respondent No.3 communicated an integrated seniority list of Line Inspectors as on 01.01.1998, through memo dated 08.09.1998, wherein the name of respondent No.4 was shown at Sl.No. 47. But, after formation of APEPDC Ltd., at Visakhapatnam, respondent No.3 issued the revised seniority list dated 13.09.2002, excluding the name of respondent No.4 and other 20 Line Inspectors. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.4 filed Writ Petition No. 2880 of 2003 which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the seniority list, dated 13.09.2002, had become final. The petitioners herein stood at Sl.Nos. 60, 71, 44, 86, 72 and 94 respectively in the above said seniority list. But however, respondent No.4 used his good offices and therefore, respondent No.2 directed respondent No.3 to rectify the seniority of respondent No.4, which is highly objectionable. Respondent No.3 has issued the revised provisional integrated seniority list, dated 30.04.2011, wherein respondent No.4 was figured at Sl.No.7, depriving the other senior members from getting their promotion. Therefore, the petitioners approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No.4 has given an undertaking that he would forego his lien and seniority in his parent circle i.e. TL&SS, Circle/APTRANSCO and to accept the last rank among the cadre in the zone/circle/division as the case may be where he will be absorbed as per the rules in force and that this undertaking given by the respondent No.4 was accepted by respondent Nos.1 to 3. Now, the impugned order is passed by respondent No.2, directing respondent No.3 to rectify the seniority of respondent No.4 based on his seniority list of Visakhapatnam Circle from 1994 onwards duly examining the issue from time to time and report compliance. The request of the petitioners is that in pursuance of this direction, the seniority of respondent No.4 may be revised duly taking the seniority from 1998 onwards. When respondent No.4 has already given an underrating stating that he would forego his lien and seniority in his parent circle, the same has to be taken note of by respondent No.3 in rectifying the seniority of respondent No.4. Therefore, appropriate decision has to be taken by respondent No.3 in accordance with law, regarding the seniority of the petitioners as well as respondent No.4 particularly with reference to the undertaking given by respondent No.4, dated 20.07.2004. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to file objections to the impugned memo before respondent No.3, who, in turn, shall take appropriate decision and pass appropriate orders and thereafter, communicate the same to the petitioners. No order as to costs. _____________ K.C.BHANU,J Dt: 24.06.2011 kdl