THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9528 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Record Assistant in Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Vemulavada, Karimnagar District, respondent No.1 herein on 10.11.1987. He was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant on 02.04.1997. Respondent No.4 was appointed directly as Junior Assistant on 25.11.1996, on compassionate grounds due to the death of his father, who was an employee of the Devasthanam. Through proceedings, dated 14.11.2008, the Devasthanam promoted respondent No.4 and one Sri V.Narsaiah, Junior Assistants, to the post of Senior Assistants. The petitioner challenges the promotion of respondent No.4 on the ground that his seniority was overlooked. He contends that in W.P.No.1073 of 1997 filed by him, he was declared as senior to M.Papa Rao, who in turn is shown as senior to respondent No.4 and in that view of the matter, the promotion of respondent No.4 is untenable. On behalf of the Devasthanam, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the inter se seniority between the petitioner and M.Papa Rao was decided by this Court in W.P.No.1073 of 1997 and it has no bearing upon the seniority of respondent No.4. It is stated that respondent No.4 was appointed directly to the post of Junior Assistant on 25.11.1996, whereas the petitioner was promoted to that post on 02.04.1997 and thereby, the former is senior to the latter. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner gained an impression that he is senior to respondent No.4 on the basis of a provisional list of seniority prepared by respondent No.1 in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court through order, dated 27.10.1997, in W.P.No.1073 of 1997. That was in relation to the seniority between the petitioner on the one hand and M.Papa Rao on the other. The respondents have simply placed the petitioner above M.Papa Rao and did nothing more. The seniority list cannot be treated as reflecting correct position of all the Junior Assistants. In a way, the dates of appointment of all the employees are shown in the same column without indicating the post to which they are appointed. The material furnished by the respondents along with the counter-affidavit discloses that while some of them are appointed as Attendars and some others as Record Assistants initially, only three of them namely respondent No.4, Lakshman Rao and Srikanth Reddy were directly appointed as Junior Assistants. What becomes material in determining the seniority in the post of Junior Assistant is the date of appointment to that post, whether by way of recruitment or by way of promotion. Viewed in this context, respondent No.4 is senior to the petitioner since he was appointed in November 1996, whereas the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant in April, 1997. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:01.12.2010 kdl