IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 17566 of 2008 Between: 1 R.Ramantham S/o. Vittalaiah R/o. H.No. 9-36, Opp: Akin Labs, Sharada nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. 2 K.Seetha Rama Rao S/o. Kishna Rao R/o. Plot No. 441, Vaidehi Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad - 070. 3 D.Satyanarayana Rao S/o. MET.Naesimha Rao R/o. H.No. 2-10-200, Jyothi Nagar, Karimnagar- 001. 4 V.Rama Chandram S/o. Raghunatham R/o. H.No. 191 C, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad - 38. 5 K.Venkateswara Rao S/o. Sunder Raj R/o. 002, Srinivas Kalyani Apts., M.J.Colony, Moulali, Hyderabad - 040. 6 Juloor Bala Swamy S/o. Narayana R/o. H.No. 8-1-77/D, Behind Hq Hospital, Mahbubnagar - 001. 7 S.Nalla Reddy S/o. Venkata Reddy R/o. Plot No. 182/B, Ravindra Nagar Colony, Habsiguda, Hyderabad - 7. 8 A.Satyanarayana S/o. Rama Chandram Kavadiguda, Secunderabad- 80 9 M.Sudhakar Reddy S/o. Rama Chandra Reddy R/o. H.No. 16-2-752/K/64, Saidabad, Opp.Ganga Theatre, hyderabad. 10 Mohammed Ghouse S/o. Hussain, R/o. H.No. 10-5-32/1, Flat No. 308, Gouthami Towers, Ahmed Nagar, Hyderabad - 28. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Irrigation Department ), Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation and CAD Department, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. .....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 issue an order or direction or the writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 08-08-2007 passed by the A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 9559/2002 and set aside the same and consequentially direct the respondents to ﬁnalise the zone wise seniority list of Asst.Engineers of Zone V and Zone VI upto 18-10-1975 following the rules pass such further or other orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.JANAKI RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled against the order dated 8.8.2007 passed in O.A.No.9559 of 2002 by the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad 2. The applicants – writ petitioners, herein ﬁled the said O.A.No.9559 of 2002 questioning the action of the respondents herein in placing the APPSC direct recruit Supervisors (Asst.Engineers) of 1962 above the promotee Sub-Overseers in Zone V and Zone VI. 3. The facts stated are that the petitioners are direct recruit Supervisors (Assistant Engineers) in the years 1960 and 1962 and they claim preferential right for notional promition as against certain promotee Supervisors, who were promoted long back in accordance with the seniority lists issued in RC No.ENC/D226735/89, published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazettee on 28.5.1998. Earlier the direct recruit supervisors approached the Tribunal by ﬁling R.P.Nos.6479 of 1988 and batch seeking a direction to prepare the seniority list strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in the Hyderabad cadre and recruitment rules. The Tribunal by an order dated 22.4.1993 directed the respondents therein to prepare the seniority list of the persons allotted to Irrigation Department from 1.4.1965 onwards taking into account the relevant statutory provision applicable, expeditiously and make a review of promotions on its basis and grant consequential beneﬁts due to them. It was further observed that “We are constrained to give such directions as steps do not appear to have been taken by the respondents to discharge the elementary obligation of administering the cadre”. The petitioners questioned the proceedings issued on 28.5.1998 insofar as they relate to Zone-wise seniority list in respect of Zones V and Zone VI. According to the petitioners, they should be given preferential right for notional promotion as against certain promotees of Sub-Overseers. The Tribunal by the impugned order observed that the petitioners before approaching the Tribunal have not availed any of the statutory remedy questioning the said seniority lists published in the year 1998 by way of ﬁling appeal before the appellate authority, but ﬁled the O.A. in the year 2002. It was also observed that the persons, who were placed above the petitioners and according to the petitioners not entitled to be promoted in preference to them, were not impleaded as parties to the said O.A. and, therefore, dismissed the O.A. 4. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 5. Having carefully gone through the material placed on record, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A. as time barred. The seniority lists, which the petitioners sought to challenge are admittedly published in the Gazettee on 28.5.1998, whereas the O.A. was ﬁled in 2002. Further, the petitioners have also not chosen to implead the persons who, according to them, were placed above them in the seniority lists and who were not entitled to be promoted in preference to them. 6. In the circumstances, we ﬁnd no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition, which is meritless is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________ C.V.RAMULU,J 13th August, 2008. PNV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.17566 of 2006 13th August, 2008