HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 6379 of 2010 Between: B. Balkishan S/o Late Saketha Raju, 62 years ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary TR &B Department , Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to order dated 09.12.2009 passed in O.A.No. 3811 of 2006 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was working as Regional Transport Officer at the time of filing of the O.A and he was originally appointed as LDC in the year 1969 in the office of the RTO, Karimnagar and thereafter, he was promoted to various cadres and finally promoted to the post of RTO in the month of March, 1999. It is the case of the applicant that he is fully qualified and eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner, which is a second gazetted post and is covered by the rules called “the Andrha Pradesh Transport Service Rules” issued in G.O.Ms.No. 180, Transport Roads and Buildings (TR.I) Department, dated 1.7.1994. It is stated that the method of recruitment to the category of RTO is by promotion from the category of Motor Vehicle Inspector, which is a gazetted post appointment by transfer form the category of Superintendents in Subordinate Officers and in the Regional Transport Authority and Section Officers/Private Secretaries to Hon’ble Ministers and Secretaries to Government in the Secretariat. It is submitted that first respondent has prepared the panels by including the names of the applicant and five others and DPC was conducted on 25.4.2006 for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner. It is also submitted that the applicant’s promotion to the cadre of Deputy Transport Commissioner ought to have been released following the said DPC conducted on 25.4.2006 for the panel year 2005-06. The main grievance of the petitioner is that his juniors were promoted to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner by the respondents but the applicant’s case has not been considered. Hence, he approached the Tribunal. The respondents field a counter stating that even though the panel for the year 2005-2006 was approved by the DPC on 25.4.2006, promotions could not be effected as the seniority list in the cadre of RTO was in dispute and after finalization of the Seniority list review DPC was conducted by the respondents for the panel years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 and thereafter, promotions have been effected, by which time, the applicant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and therefore, the promotion could not be issued to the applicant. Considering the material made available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. The relevant portion reads as under: “In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that by the time the junior to the applicant has been promoted the applicant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and in view of this, there cannot be a notional promotion issued to the applicant as his junior was promoted subsequent to the retirement of the applicant as Deputy Transport Commissioner. Therefore, the relief sought for by the applicant cannot be granted. Thus, the OA is devoid of merits and it is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.” The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that when once the respondents prepared the panel by including the name of the petitioner and DPC was conducted on 25.4.2006 for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner, they ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for promotion. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader for Services-II submits that though the panel for the year 2005-06 was approved by the DPC on 25.4.2006, promotions could not be effected as the seniority list in the cadre of RTO was in dispute and after finalization of the seniority list, review DPC was conducted by the respondents for the panel years 2004- 05 and 2005-06 and thereafter promotions have been effected, by which time the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, therefore, he could not be issued and junior to the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Transport Commissioner vide orders dated 30.08.2006. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record and also as stated by the learned Government Pleader for Services-II that even though the panel for the year 2005-2006 was approved by the DPC on 25.4.2006 promotions could not be effected and by the time review DPC was conducted by the respondents for the panel years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and promotions have been effected, the petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and therefore, his junior was promoted as Deputy Transport Commissioner by order dated 30.8.2006. Hence, we see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has given cogent reasons for declining the relief as sought for. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J DATE: 22/03/2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.