IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25598 of 2008 Between: R.K. Simhachalam S/o. Narayana Vizianagaram Rural and FAC, District B.C. Welfare Officer, Vizianagaram. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissionr, Back Ward Classes Welfare Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Srikakaulam District at Srikakulam-532 001 3 The District B.C. Welfare Officer, Srikakaulam District at Srikakulam- 532 001 4 Meduri Jagadamba, Hostel Welfare Officer Gr.I Government Ashram School (B.C.) for Girls, Bandaruvaniapeta, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam 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 may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of Certiorari calling for the Records relating to the Judgment of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 2457 of 2003 dt.27-4-2007 and set aside the same and hold that the promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer is perfectly legal, valid and in order and pass such other and further orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25598 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) It is the case of the petitioner that he was originally appointed as Grade-II Hostel Welfare Officer with effect from 17-12-1980 in Vizianagaram District. On passing the requisite departmental test, he was promoted to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I with effect from 01- 10-1992 and his services were regularized in the said post. He was temporarily appointed as Assistant Social Welfare Officer with effect from 29-06-1994 and thereafter he was promoted as Assistant Social Welfare Officer with effect from 22-06-1995. After trifurcation of Social Welfare Department, as he originally belongs to B.C. Welfare Department, he was opted to continue in B.C. Welfare Department. Accordingly, he was posted as Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer vide proceedings, dated 18-09- 1996, issued by the Commissioner of B.C. Welfare. The zonal seniority list of Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-I of Zone I was prepared by the 1st respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.A1/3838/2001, dated 07-03- 2002, wherein his name was shown at Sl.No.17 while the name of the 4th respondent was shown at Sl.No.15. Against the said seniority list, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Government and the Government while setting aside the said final seniority list, issued Memo No.5634/A1/03-5, dated 01-07-2003, directing the 1st respondent to revise the seniority list of Vizianagaram District as well as the inter se seniority of Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-I of Zone-I. Accordingly, the Director of B.C. Welfare issued Proc.No.A1/2306/03, dated 20-10-2003 revising the final seniority list of Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-I of Zone-I, against which, the petitioner and others filed an appeal before the Government and the Government finally issued Memo No.3391/A/2004-3, dated 17-01-2005 directing the 1st respondent to place the petitioner and others at appropriate place in the final seniority list of Grade-I Hostel Welfare Officers of Zone-I. The 1st respondent finally communicated the provisional seniority list of Grade-I Hostel Welfare Officers vide Memo No.A1/705/2004-I, dated 04-02-2005, wherein the name of the petitioner name was shown at Sl.No.9 and the name of the 4th respondent was not shown in the said seniority list. The 1st respondent also issued final seniority list of Zone-I Hostel Welfare Officers Grade-I in Proc.No.A1/705/2004-I, dated 18-03-2005, wherein his name was shown at Sl.No.6 while the name of the 4th respondent was not figured. It is stated that the said seniority list was never challenged by the 4th respondent and therefore, the said seniority list has become final. It is further stated that the petitioner was originally appointed as Grade-II Hostel Welfare Officer with effect from 17-12-1980 whereas the 4th respondent was appointed as Grade-II Hostel Welfare Officer on 26- 12-1981. His services were regularized in the cadre of Grade-II Hostel Welfare Officer from 17-12-1980 and the services of the 4th respondent were regularized in the said post from 20-06-1981. Insofar as promotion to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I is concerned, the petitioner was promoted on 01-10-1992 whereas the 4th respondent was promoted on 27-03-1998. The petitioner was further promoted to the post of Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer on the basis of his seniority and eligibility and he was also given Special Grade Scales on completion of eight years in the post of Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer vide proceedings dated 04-10-2005. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that he is the senior to the 4th respondent in all the cadres. The 4th respondent did not challenge the basic orders of his promotion to the cadre of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I or that of Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer and as such she is estopped from claiming seniority over and above the petitioner, basing on the seniority list dated 07-03-2002, which was already set aside by the Government. It is further stated that the 1st respondent prepared the seniority list of Assistant B.C. Welfare Officers of Multi Zone-I vide proceedings No.A2/7384/2005, dated 20-07-2006, wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.35 and the name of the 4th respondent was not figured as she was not promoted to the said post. The 1st respondent also communicated final seniority list of Assistant B.C. Welfare Officers vide proceedings No.A2/7384/2005, dated 20-02-2007, wherein his name was shown at Sl.No.35. The 1st respondent also issued revised provisional seniority list of Assistant B.C. Welfare Officers of Multizone I, basing on the proceedings dated 20-02-2007, vide Memo No.A2/7384/2005, dated 30-07-2008, in which the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.7 as he is fully eligible and qualified for promotion. While so, the 4th respondent filed O.A.No.2457 of 2003 before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, to declare that she is entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer in Zone I basing on the seniority list dated 07-03-2002. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent contended before the Tribunal that the case of the 4th respondent is entitled to be considered for promotion, if she is otherwise qualified and eligible for promotion to such category or post and can pass the required tests within the period of probation or within one year or in one of the first two examinations held after such promotion, whichever is later. The 4th respondent has time to pass the required tests upto 2005, if three years is calculated from 02-04- 2002 i.e., the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.15. In fact, the 4th respondent has passed the tests in November, 2003 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein contended before the Tribunal that the concession of the aforesaid G.O. amending to Rule 15(a) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short “the Rules”) shall not be given to the 4th respondent and, therefore, the 4th respondent is not entitled for promotion. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after considering the effect of G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 02-04-2002, held that the 4th respondent is entitled to be promoted in view of the concession given under Rule 15(a) of the Rules, and accordingly, while allowing the O.A. directed the official respondents to place the matter before the review D.P.C. as on 23-01- 2003 and Review D.P.C. shall consider the case of the 4th respondent under Rule 15(a) of the Rules and recommend promotion of the 4th respondent with effect from the date when the petitioner herein was promoted and the consequential orders to be issued by the appointing authority i.e., the 1st respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The said order is questioned by the petitioner on the ground that it is not for the Tribunal to direct the Review D.P.C. to act in a particular manner, as it is for the Review D.P.C. to consider qualification, seniority, eligibility, suitability etc., while considering promotion. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that there cannot be any objection if the writ petition is disposed of directing the review D.P.C. to consider the case of the petitioner, the 4th respondent as well as other eligible candidates in accordance with law. Having regard to the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, without going into the rival contentions, we dispose of the writ petition directing the official respondents to place the matter before the review D.P.C. as on 23-01-2003 and the review D.P.C. shall recommend the case of the petitioner, the 4th respondent as well as other eligible candidates in accordance with law, taking into consideration qualification, seniority, eligibility, suitability etc., and take appropriate decision in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 22-06-2009 Prv