IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 21027 of 2008 Between: Y.Mohana Rao S/o.Y.Koteswara RAo O/o. SDOP, BSNL,Gowliguda,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND The Chief General manager, AP Telecom BSNL Door Sanchar Bhavan,Opp:Annapuran Hotel , Abids Hyderabad-1 .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not maintaining the Long standing seniority list of D. Group B Oﬃcers in AP Telecom circle before eﬀecting the transfer of the petitioner vide Letter No.TA/STA/70/4/Longstand/Req.trfs/SDEs/2008/47 dated 13th August 2008 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust unfair, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to produce the long Standing seniority List of Group 'B' cadre oﬃcers in the AP Circle before eﬀecting the transfers vide LR.No.TA/STA/70/4/longstand/Req.trfs/SDEs /2008/47 dated 13th August 2008. Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.SATYAVATHI DITTAKAVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.DEVANAND The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not maintaining the Long Standing Seniority List of Group ‘B’ Oﬃcers in A.P.Telecom Circle before eﬀecting the transfer of the petitioner vide Letter No. TA/STA /70/4/ Longstand /Req.trfs/SDEs/2008, dated 13.08.2008 as arbitrary, illegal a n d violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondent to prepare Long Standing Seniority List of group ‘B’ Cadre Oﬃcers in A.P. Telecom Circle for effecting the transfers. The complaint of the petitioner seems to be that as per the transfer policy, the senior most person in one SSA would be transferred to another SSA, but in the case of the petitioner, though there are many Long Standing Oﬃcers available in the Hyderabad SSA, he is disturbed contrary to the transfer policy. While admitting the writ petition on 24.09.2008, status quo obtaining as on that day was directed to be continued until further orders. Now a vacate stay petition is ﬁled denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was relieved from the duties on 14.8.2008. But, as he refused to receive the relieving orders, the same were sent by registered post with acknowledgment due to the residential address of the petitioner and the same was returned with endorsement ‘door lock for 7 days’. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such evidence produced before this Court and, in fact, learned counsel for the respondent did not place any evidence before this Court showing that the petitioner has refused to receive the relieving order. Be that as it may. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to make a detailed representation as to how injustice was done to him in transferring him while retaining the seniors in Hyderabad SSA within a period of one week from today. On making such representation, the respondents shall consider and dispose of the same within a period of two weeks thereafter. Till such time, the impugned order shall not be given effect to. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. __________ 18-11-2008 Note: Despatch copy of the order by T omorrow. (B.O) rkk