IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12665 of 1996 Between: B.Narayana, S/o. Narsoju, Nizamabad District, R/o. Banswada, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Executive Director, Karimnagar Zone. 3 Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Karimnagar. 4 Sri A.G.Reddy, Traffic Inspector Grade-III, Bheemgal, Nizamabad (APSRTC), District, (now promoted to Traffic Inspector Grade-II). .....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing the impugned promotion order issued vide proceedings No.P2/255(16)/96-EDKR dated 24-5-1996 in promoting the 4th Respondent and the other Juniors ignoring the Petitioner who is Senior in Traffic Inspector Grade-III as totally illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to promote the Petitioner to the post of Traffic Inspector Grade-II in the time scale of Rs.2350/- to Rs.4685/- w.e.f. 24-5-96 with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.S.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the promotion of respondent No.4 as Traffic Inspector, Grade-II, and sought for further directions to respondents 1 to 3 to promote him to the said post of Traffic Inspector, Grade-II. 2. The petitioner as well as respondent No.4 were working as Traffic Inspectors, Grade-III in the Nizamabad Region of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. In the seniority list prepared in the cadre of Traffic Inspector, Grade-III, petitioner was placed at Serial No.3, whereas respondent No.4 was placed at Serial No.5. It is the case of the petitioner that as much as he is senior to respondent No.4 in the cadre of Traffic Inspector, Grade- III, he was to be promoted earlier than respondent No.4 to the post of Traffic Inspector, Grade-II. It is his case that as he was 56 years old at the time of filing the writ petition, he was exempted from passing the departmental test, but respondents 1 to 3, without giving the benefit of such exemption and ignoring his claim, promoted the 4th respondent to the post of Traffic Inspector, Grade-II, by an order, dated 24th May 1996, passed in Proceedings No.P2/255(16)/96-ED : KR. 3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that petitioner was promoted as Traffic Inspector, Grade-III, on 03.08.1983 on adhoc basis, and he was promoted on regular basis only with effect from 31.07.1984. It is further stated in the counter that as far as the post of Traffic Inspector, Grade-II is concerned, as per the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966, the said posts are to be filled up in the ratio of 3 : 2 by promotion from Ticket Inspectors, Driving Instructors and Traffic Apprentices, who have completed the training successfully. It is also stated in the counter that the promotion, which is granted to the 4th respondent, was made under Regulation 30 of the Recruitment Regulations, to meet the exigency of requirement. It is further stated that in the written examination, respondent No.4 has secured 44 marks, whereas the petitioner has secured only 38.4 marks, and therefore, respondent No.4 was promoted. 4. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, it is evident that the promotion given to respondent No.4 was only on adhoc basis and it was not a regular promotion. Moreover, to attend the emergency services, when adhoc promotions are effected, the respondents have preferred the candidates who have secured higher marks in the written examination. As it is stated that the case of the petitioner also will be considered whenever regular vacancies are to be filled up, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, to interfere with the promotion given to respondent No.4, and to issue any further directions for promotion of the petitioner. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th February 2009. Skmr/ajr