IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1483 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 03/07/2008 in WP NO : 12656 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: K.Prabhakar S/o.late K.J.Swamy Das R/o.H.No.2-1-125, F.C.I. Employees Colony, Sunder Nagar, Miapur, Hyderabad - 500 049. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Manager (Depot) Food Corporation of India, Buffer Storage Depot, Charlapally, Hyderabad - 500 076 2 Area Manager Food Corporation of India, District Office, Street No.4, Sri Sai Nilayam, Hubsiguda, Hyderabad. 3 General Manager (A.P.Region), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, III Floor, H.A.C.A. Bhavan, Opp: A.P. Legislative Assembly, Hyderabad - 500 004. 4 General Manager (South), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (South), No.3, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 006. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : MR.PRADIP TORNEKAR Counsel for the Respondents: B.ANJANEYULU(SC FOR FCI) The Court made the following : JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R.Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 3rd July 2008 passed in writ petition No.12656 of 2008, this appeal has been filed. 2. The facts are that the petitioner-appellant was appointed as a daily wage watchman somewhere in 1976, and, thereafter, his services were regularized with effect from 21st December 1981. He was thereafter given promotion to the post of A.G.III (Depot) because of a mistaken notion that he was given regular appointment in 1976. When the mistake was realized to the effect that services of the petitioner-appellant were regularized in 1981 and not in 1976, he was reverted and being aggrieved by the order of reversion, the aforesaid writ petition was filed, which has been rejected by the learned single Judge after perusal of the record. 3. We have heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellant. It has been submitted by him that for about seven years, the appellant had worked in the promotional post, and, therefore, it would be unjust to revert him. We do not find any substance in this submission for the reason that the promotion was given by mistake and when the mistake was noticed, it was rectified and he was reverted. In such a case, it cannot be said that the reversion is either improper or illegal. 4. We do not find any substance in the appeal, especially when the learned single Judge has perused the record and only thereafter he has passed the order. 5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 28th November 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr