IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8099 of 1999 Between: 1 K.Santharam S/o Late Govindarao Tummapala, Mallimaduguvari st., Anakapalli. 2 M.S.Apparao S/o Late Simhachalam Tummapala, Nidanamdoddi, Konathala Jaggappalaswamigarlist., Gavarapalem, Anakapalli. 3 P.Mahalakshminaidu S/o Late Appalanaidu Tummapala, Villurijoginaidugari st., Gavarapalem, Anakapalli. 4 M.Nageswararao S/o Late Mahalakshmi Tummapala, Dadivari St., Gavarapalem, Anakapalli. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Managing Director, The Anakapalli Cooperative Sugars Ltd., Tummapala 531 032, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Director of Sugars and Cane Commissioner, Exhibtion Grounds Road, Hyderabad-1. 3 V.S.Prakasarao Thummapala, Anakapalli, Visakhpatnam Dt.531 032(Sl.No.35) 4 B.Venkatarao Thummapala, Anakapalli, Visakhpatnam Dt.531 032(Sl.No.46) 5 K.Ramarao Thummapala, Anakapalli, Visakhpatnam Dt.531 032(Sl.No.47) 6 Y.Atchaiahnaidu Thummapala, Anakapalli, Visakhpatnam Dt.531 032(Sl.No.59) 7 D.S.Prakasarao Thummapala, Anakapalli, Visakhpatnam Dt.531 032(Sl.No.60) .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.A.SRINIVASA SARMA Counsel for Respondent No.1:MR. K.BATHI REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.2: AGP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 7:MR. V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in promoting respondent Nos.3 to 7 overlooking the petitioners’ seniority, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri A.Srinivasa Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.Bathi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries for respondent No.2 and Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 7. The only ground, on which, the petitioners assailed the promotion of respondent Nos.3 to 7 to the posts of Head Time Keeper, Sugar Godown Keeper, General Accountant, Purchase In-charge and Cane Head Clerk, is that the petitioners are seniors and the posts being non-selection posts, their seniority was overlooked by promoting respondent Nos.3 to 7. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Managing Director of respondent No.1 Sugar Factory, it is inter alia averred that the minimum qualification required for the promotion posts referred to above is graduation and that while none of the petitioners possesses the said qualification, respondent Nos.3 to 7 are either graduates or post- graduates and, therefore, the petitioners could not be promoted. In support of this plea, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 furnished a copy of staffing pattern approved by the Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner vide R.C.No.17489/77 B2, dated 10.04.1980 showing that the staffing pattern prescribed the qualification of graduation for the said posts. The petitioners have not controverted the above-mentioned averments contained in the counter-affidavit. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in respondent No.1 promoting respondent Nos.3 to 7 overlooking the claims of the petitioners for promotion. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni