IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.32332 of 2011 Between: P.Prem Sagar Rao … Petitioner and The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Boggulkunta, Tilak Road, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.32332 of 2011 ORDER: Questioning inaction on the part of the respondents in including the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of Junior/Senior Assistant cadre either in Ranga Reddy District or in Khammam District or in any other institution, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Initially, the petitioner was appointed on 24.07.1990 as Junior Assistant by the Deputy Commissioner, Edowment Department, in Satyanarayana Sahita Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple, Kalwavaddu, Khammam District and thereafter, he worked in various temples on transfers. On 31.08.2001, he was appointed as Manager and was given a charge of Sri Prasannanjeneya Swamy Temple, Aliabad, Shameerpet, R.R.District and Kshetragiri Venkata Swamy, Ghanapur, R.R.District. While so, the 2nd respondent, Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, R.R.District, addressed a letter dated 07.04.2011 to the 3rd respondent, Assistant Commissioner, Khammam District, requesting to include the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of Junior Assistants of Khammam District. As there was no response to the said letter, the petitioner made a representation dated 27.07.2011 to the 1st respondent, Commissioner, requesting to direct the 3rd respondent to include his name in the seniority list of Junior/Senior Assistant cadre and consequently as Grace III Executive Officer. As no orders have been passed even on the said representation, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s age is 54 years and his left over service is hardly four years. Though the 2nd respondent addressed a letter dated 07.04.2011 to the 3rd respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of Junior/Senior Assistant, the 3rd neither included the name of the petitioner in the seniority list nor passed any orders on the said letter. Bringing the said fact, the petitioner also made a representation dated 27.07.2011 to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent also did not pass any orders thereon. Therefore, his service is likely to be affected for further promotion. He further submits that the petitioner having passed all the departmental tests and also having requisite qualifications for further promotion, the respondents are not including the name of the petitioner in the seniority list. Hence, the respondents may be directed to include the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of Junior/Senior Assistant. The learned Government Pleader would submit that it is not known whether the name of the petitioner is included in the seniority list or not. As it is specifically submitted that the 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent to include the name of the petitioner and the petitioner also made a representation to the authorities, the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the material on record. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the 2nd respondent Assistant Commissioner, Ranga Reddy District, addressed a letter dated 07.04.2011 to the 3rd respondent, Assistant Commissioner, Khammam, which reads as under. “In the reference 4th cited the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., Hyderabad has been issued guidelines who were appointed in the parent institutions and as per norms. In enclose herewith the copy of Service Register along with the representation under reference 2nd cited of Sri Premsagar who was appointed as Junior Assistant in the establishment of Sri Satyanarayana Sahita Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple, Kalvavoddu, Khammam District on 24.07.1990 and request you to include his name in the seniority list of Junior Assistants of Khammam District as per instructions issued in the reference 1st cited as per rules.” From the above, it is clear that the 2nd respondent recommended the name of the petitioner to the 3rd respondent to include his name in the seniority list as per the rules. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the 2nd respondent addressed the said letter to the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent did not initiate any action for inclusion of his name in the seniority list. Thereafter, though he made a representation to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent also did not pass any orders on it. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate that without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent, Assistant Commissioner, Khammam District, to consider the case of the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the seniority list in pursuance of the letter dated 07.04.2011 addressed by the 2nd respondent, Assistant Commissioner, Ranga Reddy District, and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 12.12.2011 Note: Furnish C.C. in two days. B/o. LSK