IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21215 of 2001 DATE:02.12.2010 Between: Z.Salomon …… Petitioner And The District Collector/Chairman, District Scheduled Caste Services Co-op. Society Limited, Cuddapah and 2 others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21215 of 2001 ORDER : The petitioner is working as attender in the office of Deputy Executive Engineer, District Scheduled Castes Services Co-operative Society Limited, Kadapa. He seeks writ of certiorari in respect of proceedings in Rc.No.1635/99-D1, dated 15.06.2000 of the 1st respondent and to quash the same and to declare that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as junior assistant with effect from the year 1997 with all consequential benefits. 2) The petitioner seeks the relief on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.517, G.A.D (Ser.B) Department, dated 29.10.1987 whereby Rule 14 of the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules was amended adding a proviso to it. The petitioner claims that as per the said G.O, those who are appointed prior to 29.10.1987 may be considered for appointment by recruitment by transfer to the post of junior assistant if they possess minimum general educational qualifications and put in not less than 5 years of regular service. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that by virtue of the said G.O, several other similarly placed employees in the Society were promoted and that when the petitioner put in representation, the 1st respondent/District Collector as Chairman of the Society rejected his request. Thereupon the petitioner filed W.P. No.19780 of 1999 in this Court. This Court by order dated 21.09.2009 directed the 3rd respondent therein viz., the Executive Director of the Society at Kadapa to consider the petitioner’s representations dated 02.06.1997 and 27.11.1998 along with recommendation made by the Executive Engineer to the 3rd respondent dated 02.02.1999 and pass appropriate orders within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. Accordingly, the Executive Director addressed letter dated 09.05.2000 to the Managing Director of the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Castes Cooperative Financial Corporation Limited, Hyderabad requesting for permission to appoint the petitioner as junior assistant in the existing vacancy as per staffing pattern of 1986 of the Society. The District Collector as Chairman of the Society passed order dated 15.06.2000 to the affect that service rules of the Corporation are not yet approved and the Ministerial Service Rules are not applicable to Corporation employees. By that order, the petitioner was also informed that his request for promotion from the cadre of attender to that of junior assistant is rejected and his case may be considered in future after finalisation of service rules if such provision is made therein. In view of the said order, this Court passed order dated 22.12.2001 holding that in view of order dated 15.06.2000, no contempt of the previous order was made out, and the petitioner was given liberty to challenge the order dated 15.06.2000 if advised. Even though this writ petition is filed in the year 2001, the petitioner’s counsel has no information as to what happened subsequent to filing of this writ petition. Even as per allegations in the writ petition, there is a post of Record Assistant in between the post of Junior Assistant and the post of Attender. The petitioner is claiming double promotion from Attender to Junior Assistant. It is stated that previously several promotions were effected even though there were no service rules framed for the society and that it is only when the petitioner’s case came up for consideration, his case was not considered because of filing of the writ petition. The petitioner’s counsel is not aware whether service rules were framed by the Society subsequent to the impugned order dated 15.06.2000. In the circumstances, I propose to dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents to consider representation if any to be filed by the petitioner in this regard without being carried away by the fact of the petitioner filing writ petitions, in case service rules are framed for the Society. 3) With the said observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 2, 2010 ksh