IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 17444 of 2000 Between: T.Sambasiva Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Union of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, New Delhi and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Assailing the order dated 23.3.2000 made in O.A No. 596 of 1999 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and also the letter dated 5.1.1999 issued by the second respondent herein informed the petitioner that the third respondent herein is senior to him and there being only one ST vacancy she was promoted, as illegal and arbitrary and to declare that the petitioner is entitle to Grade IV scale of pay with effect from 14.11.1995 with all consequential benefits, the petitioner filed present writ petition. The petitioner herein was converted from the post of Telegraph Assistant as Telegraphist with effect from 25.11.1975 while the respondent No.3 herein was appointed as Telegraphist with effect from 10.10.1973. The case of the petitioner herein is that since he was appointed on 24.6.1970, as Telegraphic Assistant, though converted subsequently, he should be placed above the respondent No. 3 herein taking his initial date of appointment. He also filed OA No. 1075 of 1995 earlier for the grant of Grade – IV scale of pay in preference to the respondent No.3 herein which was disposed of directing the respondents to dispose of the representation. The said representation was disposed of the respondents on 5.1.1999 rejecting his case for promotion to Grade IV scale against ST quota, to which respondent No.3 was promoted against one vacancy. As can be seen from the order impugned, the post of Telegraphic Assistant and Telegraphist are two separate and distinct posts. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Telegraphic Assistant and subsequently converted as Telegrphist on 25.11.1975, in which cadre the third respondent herein is senior, being appointed to that cadre on 10.10.1973. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in observing that the petitioner cannot demand to be appointed as Telegraphist with his original seniority. The Tribunal further observed that though the petitioner was shown junior to the third respondent herein in the earlier seniority list, he did not protest and, therefore, having accepted the same, he is now estopped from contending that he is entitled for promotion in place of third respondent herein. Having gone through the material available on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada July 19, 2010 MAS