THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.20189 OF 2000 DATED: 24.08.2011 Between : V. Adinarayana Rao … Petitioner And The Govt. of A.P., respondent. By Secretary To Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad And 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.20189 OF 2000 ORDER: By G.O.Ms.No.200, Social Welfare (SCP-II) Department, dated 12.09.1985, Engineering wings were constituted temporarily in all the Districts and they were attached to the District Scheduled Caste Service Co-operative Societies under the administrative and financial control of A.P. Scheduled Castes Co-operative Finance Corporation Limited for implementation of the technical works. The petitioner, who is an Engineering Graduate, was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Vizianagaram District Scheduled Caste Service Co-operative Society Limited vide proceedings of the A.P. Scheduled Castes Co-operative Finance Corporation Limited (for short, ‘the Corporation’), dated 28.7.1986. He was granted scale of pay in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer by proceedings dated 19.12.1988 w.e.f. 1.12.1988. On 14.6.1994 the petitioner’s services were surrendered to the Corporation with immediate effect and thereafter by proceedings of the Corporation, dated 13.7.1995 he was posted as Assistant Executive Engineer in Visakhapatnam District Scheduled Caste Service Co-operative Society Limited. By proceedings dated 6.1.1996 of the District Collector/Chairman of Visakhapatnam District Scheduled Caste Service Co-operative Society Limited, the petitioner was made In- charge Deputy Executive Engineer. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.19664 of 1999, dated 31.03.2000, the Corporation made Rules governing the service of the staff working in the Engineering Wings and they were approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 29.07.2000. As per the said Rules each District is taken as a unit for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer. Accordingly, seniority lists were prepared District-wise as well as State-wise. The petitioner’s name was shown at Sl.No.6 in the list of Assistant Executive Engineers of Vizianagaram District Scheduled Caste Service Co- operative Society Limited and at Sl.No.60 in the State-wise seniority list. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed contending inter alia that the petitioner’s name ought to have been included in the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers of Visakhapatnam District since he was allotted to Visakhapatnam District against a sanctioned post and was continuing there. Thus the petitioner sought a declaration that the action of the respondent in not including the petitioner’s name in the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers of Visakhapatnam District Scheduled Caste Co-operative Society as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also sought a direction to consider his claim for promotion as Deputy Executive Engineer in Visakhapatnam District as per his seniority in that District with all consequential benefits. It is pleaded in the writ petition even in the seniority list of Vizianagaram District, he was wrongly shown at Sl.No.6 ignoring the length of service rendered by him as Draughtsman in Srikakulam Society from 2.6.1986 to 31.7.1986. It is alleged that the objections raised by him were not considered and the State-wise list was wrongly prepared on the basis of the District-wise seniority list. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation - respondent No.2 – while denying the petitioner’s allegation that his objections were not considered, it is stated that his seniority was rightly fixed taking into consideration that he joined the service on 1.8.1986 as Assistant Executive Engineer at Vizianagaram. It is also stated that Departmental Promotion Committee met on 19.10.2000 for considering the Assistant Executive Engineers (AEEs) and the Assistant Engineers (AEs) for promotion to the post Deputy Executive Engineers (DEEs) in the ratio of 2:1 and proceedings were issued promoting the eligible candidates. At that stage, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20910 of 1999 and the same was disposed of by order dated 9.2.2001 directing the Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineers along with other eligible candidates. Accordingly the petitioner’s case was considered and by proceedings dated 21.03.2001 the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer was rejected. Having allowed the said order to become final, the petitioner filed the present writ petition with all untenable contentions. This Court while issuing Rule Nisi, by order dated 24.10.2000 directed that status quo obtaining as on that date shall be maintained. Subsequently the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.13614 of 2004 seeking a direction to consider his case for promotion as regular Deputy Executive Engineer. It was pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the said application that whereas he was originally appointed as AEE on 1.8.1986, his date of joining was wrongly shown as 1.12.1988 in the State-wise Seniority List. Similarly the district was wrongly shown as Visakhapatnam instead of Vizianagaram. It was also contended that several juniors to him including M. Jaggarao and P. Ravi Kumar were promoted as Deputy Executive Engineers on 25.5.2004. On behalf of the Corporation, an additional counter-affidavit has been filed stating that the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation due to paucity of funds in the Engineering wing of the Corporation. He worked there for a period of five years and thereafter his services were placed at the disposal of the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Hyderabad. It is explained that the Social Welfare Engineering wing was created by G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 12.9.1985 as work charged establishment wherein it was clearly indicated that the salaries of the employees of Engineering wing will be met from out of MS and PS charges they earn on the works they execute and it is not a permanent establishment and they will continue to discharge their duties as long as work are available and when the works are exhausted, the Social wing Engineering outfit will be closed. Therefore, the staff working in the Engineering wing cannot have a right to claim for further continuation when the works are exhausted. It is also contended that the petitioner who is working as in-charge Deputy Executive Engineer cannot claim any right over the said post. So far as the procedure adopted in including the petitioner’s name in the seniority list of Vizianagaram District is concerned, it is contended that as per the service rules the Corporation had taken into consideration the place of appointment of the AEEs and AEs for the purpose of preparing the seniority lists and thus the petitioner’s name was rightly shown in the seniority list of Vizianagaram District Scheduled Caste Service Co-operative Society. I have heard Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner; the learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the 1st respondent; and Sri Andapalli Sanjeeva Kumar and Sri Gangarao, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. It is to be noticed that during the pendency of this writ petition the A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, A.P., Hyderabad, has been constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.107, Edn. (SE.Trg.) Department, dated 30.08.2008 and the entire Social Welfare Engineering Wing along with assets has been transferred to the said Corporation. Pursuant thereto, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.198, dated 3.11.2008 directing the staff of the Social Welfare Engineering Wing to report to the Managing Director, A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited. Accordingly, all the staff members of the erstwhile A.P.S.C. Co-operative Finance Corporation Limited including the writ petitioner have been working in A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited. In view of the subsequent developments, the newly established Corporation i.e., A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited has been impleaded as respondent No.4 to the present writ petition. Admittedly the petitioner has been working as an in-charge Deputy Executive Engineer. In view of the stand taken in the counter- affidavits that the place of appointment of the AEEs and AEs has been taken into consideration for the purpose of preparing the seniority list as provided under the service rules, I am unable to hold that the action of the respondents in including the petitioner’s name in the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers of Vizianagaram District is arbitrary and illegal. Nothing could be placed before this Court by the petitioner to show that the said procedure followed by the respondents is contrary to law. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respondents appeared to have committed a mistake in showing the petitioner’s district as Visakhapatnam in the State-wise Seniority List. It is also the specific contention of the petitioner that the action of the respondents in showing his date of appointment as AEE as 1.12.1988 is illegal and contrary to the record since he had actually joined the service as AEE in Vizianagaram District on 1.8.1986. The material placed before this Court shows that the petitioner was appointed as AEE in Vizianagaram District on 28.7.1986 and that he joined the service on 1.8.1986 and subsequently he was granted scale of pay in the post of AEE by proceedings dated 19.12.1988 w.e.f. 1.12.1988. The said contention of the petitioner has not been answered by the respondents in the counter-affidavits. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that if the date of joining is taken as 1.8.1986 in the State-wise Seniority List, there cannot be any justifiable reason to deny him the promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer. It is also contended that in view of the wrong entry made in the State-wise seniority list with regard to date of joining of the petitioner, many of his juniors were promoted illegally ignoring the seniority of the petitioner. Since the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents are silent with regard to the petitioner’s contention that the action of the respondents in showing the petitioner’s date of joining the service in the State-wise seniority list as 1.12.1988 is erroneous and illegal, it is necessary to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s objections to the State-wise seniority list of AEEs and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly the petitioner is hereby permitted to raise his objections to the State-wise seniority list of AEEs within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such objections, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving due notice to all the concerned as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 24.08.2011 gbs