THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1207 of 2007 26.3.2008 Between: M.Gurivi Reddy, S/o.M.P.Gangi Reddy And others … Petitioner AND High Court of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Registrar, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1207 of 2007 ORDER: (per Hon’ble VVSRJ) The four petitioners, at different points of time, were appointed as Judicial First Class Magistrates (JFCMs) temporarily in accordance with Rule 11(1) of Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service Rules 1962. Be it noted, all of them, prior to such appointment by transfer, were regular employees holding posts in Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service. Except second petitioner, others got selected on regular basis in May 1999 whereas second petitioner got selected on regular basis on 02.3.1991. Petitioners herein filed writ petition being W.P.No.5142 of 2004 seeking Mandamus to Andhra Pradesh High Court to determine their seniority by taking into consideration entire service including temporary service. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court giving liberty to petitioners to seek redressal before High Court by making representation. Even before the same could be considered, they filed instant writ petition raising various grounds. Counter affidavit is filed by High Court through its Registrar (Vigilance). Issue of reckoning length of service of petitioners from the date of their temporary appointment was placed before Committee of Hon’ble Judges. In obedience to directions of Committee, High Court issued notices to all the officers who might be affected and ultimately on 25.2.2008 request of petitioners to count their temporary service for the purpose of seniority in the category of JFCMs was rejected. The said order of High Court is yet to be communicated. In view of the fact that representation of petitioners has already been considered and rejected, liberty is given to petitioners to assail the same, if so advised, after order is communicated to them. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to go into merits of the case. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) _______________ (C.V.RAMULU,J) March 26, 2008 YS