THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.25328 OF 2007 DATE: 28.1.2008 Between: U. Ramana S/o Sanyas Appadu … Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home (Services-III) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and three others. ….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.25328 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Services I, appearing for the respondents. 2. This Writ of Certiorari is filed seeking to quash the order, dated 06.07.2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), dismissing the application O.A.No.5282 of 2003, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking to set aside the Memo No.21306/Ser.III/A1/2002-5, dated 04.02.2003, issued by the respondent No.1, by declaring that the petitioner is entitled for seniority in the category of JUNIORASSISTANT with effect from the date of regularisation of his services in that category i.e., 28.04.1973, with all consequential benefits. 3. Petitioner is the applicant and the respondents are the respondents, in the O.A., before the tribunal. 4. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was temporarily appointed as Junior Assistant in R&B Department, N.H. Division, Tekkali, on 28.04.1973; that, subsequently, since he passed the special tests, conducted by the Collector, Srikakulam, he was allotted to District Police Office, Srikakulam; that he was relieved in R&B Department, on 30.11.1976, and, on the same day, he joined in District Police Office, Srikakulam; that, as per the proceedings, D.O.No.617/77/C.No.6848/A8/76, dated 29.09.1977, issued by the respondent No.4, the probation of the petitioner, in the category of Junior Assistant, has commenced with effect from 28.04.1973; that, though the services of the petitioner, in the category of Junior Assistant, were regularized with effect from 28.04.1973, as per Rule 33 (a) of the A.P. State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, subsequently, as per the proceedings, dated 01.11.1977, issued by the respondent No.4, the probation of the petitioner was declared with effect from 27.04.1975, and he was brought on to “A” list with effect from 28.04.1975; that, thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondent No.3, the appellate authority, seeking to fix his seniority by taking into account the date of regularisation of his services, in the category of Junior Assistant with effect from 28.04.1973, and finally the respondent No.1, the Government, has issued Memo No.21306/Ser.III/A1/2002-5, dated 04.02.2003, informing the petitioner that his seniority in the category of Junior Assistant shall commence from the date of his joining in District Police Office, Srikakulam., which was challenged in O.A.No.5282 of 2003, before the Tribunal, and the same was eventually dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. A perusal of the Memo, dated 04.02.2003, issued by the respondent No.1, reveals that since the original appointment of the petitioner was only on temporary basis, he sought for appointment in District Police Office, Srikakulam, and appeared for the selections, conducted by the District Selection Committee, in the year 1976, and got appointed on 30.11.1976, as Junior Assistant. 6. Conduct of the petitioner in choosing a new department, by undergoing a regular selection process before the District Selection Committee, would indicate that he deserted his earlier appointment as Junior Assistant in R&B Department, dated 28.04.1973, and declaration of his probation as Junior Assistant in R&B Department, subsequently, though prior to his selection in the Office of the District Police Office, Srikakulam, pales into irrelevance because of his voluntary detachment or desertion of his earlier appointment as Junior Assistant in R&B Department and opting for selection in a new department afresh. 7. Therefore, for all purposes, it should be understood that the earlier appointment of the petitioner in R&B Department, on 28.04.1973, had become totally redundant and as such cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of declaration of probation or regularization or for any other purpose. In other words, for all purposes, the petitioner was ceased to be an employee of R&B Department and born afresh in a new department i.e., District Police Office, Srikakulam, with effect from 30.11.1976. 7. The leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the proceedings of the District Police Office, Srikakulam, dated 29.09.1977, wherein the petitioner was figured as junior most in the list of candidates, who were appointed on temporary basis on different dates. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, since the probation of the petitioner was declared, by virtue of his initial appointment in R&B Department, he ought to have shown as senior most in the list. But, inconspicuously, the said list was showing the petitioner as junior most. 8. Though the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in R&B Department, on 28.04.1973, initially, on temporary basis, subsequently he passed the special tests, conducted by the Collector, Srikakulam, allotted to the District Police Office, Srikakulam, got relieved in R&B Department, on 30.11.1976, on which date he joined duty afresh. 9. As per the proceedings, dated 29.09.1977, issued by the respondent No.4, the probation of the petitioner, in the category of Junior Assistant, had commenced with effect from 28.04.1973, but as per the subsequent proceedings, dated 01.11.1977, issued by the respondent No.4, his probation was declared with effect from 27.04.1975; that, therefore, he submitted a representation to the respondent No.3, the appellate authority, seeking to fix his seniority by taking into account the date of regularisation of his services, in the category of Junior Assistant with effect from 28.04.1973, and finally the respondent No.1, the Government, issued proceedings in Memo, dated 04.02.2003, informing the petitioner that his seniority in the category of Junior Assistant shall commence from the date of his joining in the District Police Office, Srikakulam, which was challenged before the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.5282 of 2003, and the same was eventually dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 10. The petitioner has not challenged the seniority list at the appropriate time and almost after a lapse of about two and a half decades, he filed the O.A., before the Tribunal, challenging the proceedings, dated 04.02.2003, issued by the respondent No.1, the Government. In our view, the original cause of action, if at all arises, should be the proceedings, dated 29.07.1977. 11. However, the respondents have filed counter-affidavit, before the Tribunal, clarifying that the proceedings, dated 04.02.2003, issued by the respondent No.1, the Government, have been explained. 12. A bare perusal of the said proceedings would only indicate that the petitioner who was originally recruited in R&B Department and notwithstanding his being kept under probation and also got declared the same, opted selection in the District Police Office, Srikakulam, in the year 1976, and got selected as Junior Assistant, vide proceedings, dated 30.11.1976, and hence the petitioner was ceased to be an employee of the original department i.e., R&B. It is rather a new career of the petitioner resorted to begin in the police department i.e. with effect from 30.11.1976. In view of the express conduct on the part of the petitioner, his grievance cannot be countenanced. In our view, the Memo, dated 04.02.2003, issued by the respondent No.1, the Government, does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality, as pointed out by the Tribunal, and that no interference is required by this Court with the impugned order, passed by the Tribunal. 13. For the foregoing, the writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission itself. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 28th JANUARY 2008 KA