IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.29448 of 1998 Between: J.Subrahmanyeswara Rao and two others. … Petitioners And A.P.S.E.Board, reptd., by its Member Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Smt.K.Sesharajyam. Counsel for the respondents: Sri S.D.Goud for Sri K.Chidambaram. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside seniority list dated 22-5-1996 finalized by respondent No.2 in the category of junior plant attendants, Vijayawada Thermal Power Station. Heard Smt.K.Sesharajyam, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri S.D.Goud, learned counsel representing Sri K.Chidambaram, learned standing counsel for the respondents. The controversy in this Writ Petition pertains to the seniority list prepared on 22-5-1996 among the junior plant attendants, Vijayawada Thermal Power Station. Among the three petitioners, petitioner No.3 died. Hence, the cause in this Writ Petition does not survive in respect of the said petitioner. With regard to petitioners 1 and 2, it is their case that the respondents have not followed proper procedure in preparing the seniority list. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the averments contained in the two counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, no discernible method could be culled out in finalizing the seniority list. According to the learned counsel, petitioners 1 and 2, who are shown at serial Nos.128 and 111, respectively, are entitled to be given seniority over at least four O.C. candidates. In the counter- affidavit filed by Sri S.Ashok Kumar, Law Officer, A.P. GENCO, it is, inter alia, stated that the seniority among the junior plant attendants was finalized by taking their position in the communal roster, which was intimated in memo dated 22-5-1996 and no objections were received either from the petitioners or from any other candidates. There is no specific averment in the counter-affidavits that before finalizing the seniority list, objections were called for and considered. The procedure, which is ordinarily followed in the matter of preparation of seniority list shall necessarily include calling for objections and finalization of the inter se seniority, after considering the objections. Unless the objections were called for, considered and appropriate orders are passed by giving proper reasons, it would not be possible for this Court to adjudicate the dispute relating to inter se seniority. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, by giving liberty to petitioners 1 and 2 to make a detailed representation to respondent No.2 raising all legally permissible objections to the seniority list dated 22-5- 1996 within a period of four weeks from today. On receipt of the objections, respondent No.2 shall consider and dispose of the same, by passing a reasoned order and communicate the same to petitioners 1 and 2 within a period of eight weeks thereafter. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:22-12-2008 MNR