IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 14900 of 1999 Between: B.Arjun S/o. Parashuram Dubbaka Depot, APSRTC Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Medak Region, Sangareddy. 3 The Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer Sangareddy, Medak District. 4 A.Nagabhushanam S/o. not known Dubbaka Depot, APSRTC, Medak 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein in promoting the 4th respondent herein as 'Leading Hand' over looking the claims of the writ petitioner as illegal, arbitrary to contrary to "APSRTC Recruitment Regulations, 1966" and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem think fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.MALLIK Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.HARINATH The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in promoting fourth respondent as ‘Leading Hand’ overlooking the claim of petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to APSRTC Recruitment Rules, 1966. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as Tyre Mechanic with effect from 9.1.1976 and the fourth respondent was appointed as Electrician with effect from 6.12.1976 and in the common seniority list of Artisans, he stands at Serial No.9 and fourth respondent stands at Serial No.10. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is senior to the fourth respondent, fourth respondent was promoted as Leading Hand ignoring his claim, which is arbitrary and illegal. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice from the counter filed by the respondents that in the common seniority list of Artisans Grade-I/Grade-II, who have been directly recruited, the name of petitioner was shown at Serial No.9 and fourth respondent was at Serial No.10. At the time of selections, the selection committee members verified the personal records of the petitioner and did not find I.T.I. certificate and provisional certificate of Trade. As such a doubt had arisen to the selection committee members as to the ITI qualification of the petitioner, therefore they did not consider his case for promotion to the post of Leading Hand. The fourth respondent, who is immediate junior to petitioner and who was having I.T.I. qualification and necessary certificates, was considered for promotion to the post of Leading Hand. The representation of the petitioner dated 7.10.1998 was examined and he was personally explained the facts when he visited the office. However, petitioner got issued legal notice dated 8.12.1998 and a suitable reply was given stating the above facts. In view of the averments made in the counter, it is clear that the ITI certificate and other certificates required for considering petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Leading Hand were not available with the petitioner. Under those circumstances, the selection committee rejected the case of petitioner and considered the case of fourth respondent who was his immediate junior. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that injustice was done to him and promotion to the fourth respondent as Leading Hand is arbitrary and illegal cannot be countenanced. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if promotion of the petitioner was already considered during the pendency of writ petition, the same shall not be disturbed and if no promotion is made, this order will preclude the authorities from considering his case as per law. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 2.5.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 14900 of 1999 2.5.2008