IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3724 of 2000 Between: M. Raghunatha Reddy, S/o. M. Bhaskar Reddy, Aged about 48 years, R/o.1/1644, Gandhinagar, Erramukkapalli, Cuddapah – 516 001. … Petitioner And 1. The A.P. Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The A.P. Road Transport Corporation, Cuddapah Zone, Rep. by its Executive Director, Cuddapah. 3. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Cuddapah Region, rep. by its Regional Manager, Cuddapah. … Respondents 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 writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant (Material) vide proceeding No.E2/785(62)/97-ED:C dated 27-12-1997 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider and promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant (Material) in Vth vacancy in a unit of IV vacancies with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. G. Vidyasagar Counsel for the respondents: Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari The court made the following Order: The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting his claim for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant (Material) vide proceeding No.E2/785(62)/97-ED:C dated 27-12-1997 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Complaining deprivation of such promotion to him, the petitioner, earlier, approached this court in W.P.No.22667 of 1995. This court, by order 14-10-1997, while disposing of the said writ petition, permitted the petitioner to submit a representation and directed the respondents to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted representation dated 12-12-1997. In response to the same, the impugned proceedings are issued rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as temporary booking clerk under Regulation 17 of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966, vide office order dated 27-05- 1977, issued by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur. His services were regularized with effect from 13-05-1978 and later he was promoted as conductor with effect from 15-12-1978. Subsequently, he was selected for the post of typist in the departmental selections and was appointed as such by office order dated 27-07-1979 and posted to area store, Kadapa. 4. Consequent to reorganization of the corporation into five regions with effect from 18-01-1998, some of the state-level seniority posts have become regional-level posts. Therefore, options were called for from the employees to opt the region of their choice, to work in such region. All the typists working in the corporation were asked to opt for one of the regions vide circular No.PD-56/1981-82 dated 04-11-1981. Pursuant thereto, some of the typists working in stores and purchase department have opted for promotion in the said department itself. But, since the petitioner was appointed in the year 1979, he was not entitled for exercising any option for promotion exclusively in stores and purchase department. 5. In APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, services of the corporation are classified as class-I, class-II, class-III and class-IV service. Each service consists of posts or categories of posts specified in schedules I, II, III and IV. The post of typist is included in schedule III and borne in the personnel department. There is no post of typist in stores and purchase department. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that there were amendments to the service regulations, i.e., A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966, vide Resolution No.209/88 which came into force from 29-12-1988, which enabled promotion of persons working as material assistant/typist to the post of Senior Assistant (Material). It is the grievance of the petitioner that, while some of the candidates working as material assistants, i.e. Sri D.R. Krishnaiah, Sri C. Madhusudhan Rao, Sri B.S.S. Reddy, Sri P. Narsimhulu and Sri C. Eswar Reddy, were promoted to the post of Senior Assistant (Material), he is deprived of promotion and his claim for promotion is rejected by the impugned order. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer the method of recruitment and qualifications, as per the amended regulations, to the extent relevant. The same read as under: “In a unit of 5 vacancies – a) The 2nd vacancy be filled by promotion from the rank of typist appointed on or before 18-01-1978 and opted to stores and purchase department. b) The remaining 4 vacancies be filled by promotion from the rank of junior clerk (Purchase).” 7. A reading of the amended regulations makes it clear that typists appointed on or before 18-01-1978 and who opted for stores and purchase department alone are eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant (Material). It is to be seen that the petitioner was selected and appointed as typist, which is in the borne cadre of personnel department, but he never worked in stores and purchase department. In the seniority list maintained in the stores and purchase department, the petitioner’s name did not figure at all. Therefore, only on the ground that he was not given any option, the petitioner cannot question the impugned order, whereby his claim for promotion was rejected. Even as per the amended regulations, the typists who are appointed on or before 18-01-1978 and opted to stores and purchase department alone are eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant (Material). As much as the petitioner was appointed in the year 1979 and continued as typist on the rolls of the personnel department, he is not eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant (Material) as claimed by him. Hence, I do not find any valid ground to grant the relief sought by the petitioner. 8. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. March , 2009 MRR