IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26656 of 1999 Between: Smt. Lakshmirajyam w/o G.P Sarathy Office of Censes ooperation , Hyderabad. -1 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Registrar General of India, 2/A ,Mansingh Road, Ministry of Home Affairs , New Delhi 11 00 11 2 Director Of Censes Operation , AP Posnet Bhavan, Tilak Road, Hyderabad -1 3 TBL Prasad s/o Not known Officeof the Director of Censes Operation A.P. Hyderabad. 4 Director For S.C/ STs, 6.3.738/A/22, Durga Nagar Colony , Hyderabad.-16 .....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 or direction more particular;y one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the orders issued by Hon'ble APAT in O.A.No.825/97 dt :29-7-99 read with 67/99 in O.A No.825/97 as illegal , arbitrary and violative of Art. 14, 16and 21 of the constitution of India and direct the 1st respondent and 2nd to take steps to review the promotions made in the category of U.D.C Assts. and office Superintendent in the office of the 2nd respondent in accordance with reservation policy of the Govt. of India, in respect to S.C Candidates. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.RAMABRAHMAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.KISHORE RAO The Court made the following : .... VE & PSR, JJ W.P.No. 26656 of 1999 O r d e r: (Per P. Swaroop Reddy, J.) The petitioner, who filed O.A. No.825 of1997 claimed that she was working in Census Office and was entitled for thepost of UDC with effect from 1.3.1974 by following the Rule of Reservation made available for the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste Communities, as she belongs to SC Community. She submitted a representation on 19.2.1986 about her grievance claiming that she ought to have been promoted as UDC with effect from 1973 itself. She submitted that, the said representation was rejected in 1986. Later the petitioner took up the matter with the Director of SC/ST welfare, who sent his inspection report to the Director of Census Operations for follow-up action. Even before the report was sent, she filed the present O.A., on 19.10.1995. 2. A counter was filed on behalf of the respondents contending that the applicant filed O.A.No. 825 of 1997 claiming promotion with effect from 1973. Thus there is abnormal delay. In W.P.No. 3202 of 19976, this court held that the promotions given to the petitioners, prior to 22.12.1973 i.e., prior to the coming into force of the statutory recruitment Rules in the office of the Directorate of Census Operations, Andhra Pradesh cannot be treated as ad hoc promotions and set aside the order of reversion. The judgment in the above writ petition was accepted by the Department and promotions were organised accordingly. Even, earlier, while organising promotions, the petitioner's seniority was lowered to Sl.No.3, from Sl.No.2. At that time she kept quiet and did not make any representation. The rule of Reservation in promotions was operative only with effect from 27.11.1972, whereas the present third respondent was promoted on 26.10.1971. There is no dispute that the contesting respondent was senior and eligible for promotion to the post for which he was promoted. That petitioner approached the court after twenty six years. Thus there is delay. According to the counter, the petitioner was appointed to the post of L.D.C., on 16.9.1976; she was promoted to the post of Accountant on 29.12.1979 and Head Assistant on 6.7.1987. She also worked as Junior Accounts Officer ex cadre post on deputation with effect from 30.9.1990 till 31.12.1993 and the contesting respondent is senior to the petitioner at all levels. 2. Considering the rival contentions, the O.A.,was dismissed, predominantly on the laches of the petitioner in approaching the courts at a very belated stage. 3. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the writ petition. 4. As found by the learned Administrative Tribunal, there is any amount of delay in the petitioner approaching the Tribunal, though she wanted to contend that the issue was pending before the Director General of STs and STs and as found by the learned Tribunal that contention cannot be upheld. Further more, as revealed from the counter, the contesting respondent is senior to the petitioner in all grades and the petitioner was ultimately promoted to the post she is entitled to be promoted in accordance with her seniority. She also could not get it to the notice of the court from which date exactly she was overlooked from being promoted under the reservation quota. 5. In all these circumstances,we see no merits in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. V. ESWARAIAH, J. July 14, 2009. P. SWAROOP REDDY, J.