THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 11711 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner was initially employed as Watchman in the year 1978. Subsequently, he earned promotion as Assistant Grade-III, vide proceedings dated 22.2.2001. The 1st respondent issued a memo, dated 27.11.2006, stating inter alia that the petitioner was promoted, even while the staff seniors to him in the category of attenders remained, without any promotion, and explanation of the petitioner was sought, as to why he shall not be reverted. The petitioner submitted his explanation. On a consideration of the same, the 1st respondent issued Office Order, dated 6.5.2008, canceling the orders of promotion. The consequential intimation was given by the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 21.5.2008. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri J. Kanakaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is not even allegation that the petitioner had misrepresented any facts to the respondents, and that the promotion was affected, only after verification of record. He contends that there is no basis for the respondents, in reverting the petitioner, after extracting the services for about 7 years. Sri B. Anjaneyulu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, has produced the record, particularly the seniority list of the attenders, in the concerned zone. He submits that a promotion given to the petitioner, by mistake, cannot be permitted to remain. It is no doubt true that the respondents promoted the petitioner on their own accord, vide proceedings dated 22.2.2001. This was preceded by an order from the Zonal Office, dated 21.5.2008. All the same, it was later on noticed that the petitioner figures at Sl.No.988, in the seniority list of attenders, whereas, promotions were affected, only up to Sl.No.932. Once this factual position is not disputed, the petitioner cannot insist that he must be continued in the promoted post. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the proceedings issued by the respondents. At the same time, the respondents would be under obligation to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, as and when his immediate senior in the seniority list of attender, is promoted. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 16th June 2008 PAN