THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.26728 of 2003 DATE: 05-02-2008 Between : Smt. V.Prameela … Petitioner And S.Mallikarjuna Rao and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.26728 of 2003 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. This writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 07.11.2003, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”) allowing the application O.A.No.742 of 1997, filed by respondent No.1 herein, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking to quash the proceedings No.RC/ENC/G4/67000/92, dated 10.01.1997, and to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to consider his case, keeping in view the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 25.01.1990, and Government Memo No.8/Sr.A/81-1, dated 18.01.1984, and also to declare his placement in the seniority list of Junior Assistants, as per Rule-27 of the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules. 3. Petitioner is respondent No.3, respondent No.1 is applicant, and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are respondent Nos.1 and 2, in the O.A., before the Tribunal. 4. The factual background of the case, in brief, is as under: Respondent No.1 was originally appointed as Junior Assistant at Pulichintala Project; that, after some time, as the said project had become defunct, his services were surrendered and consequently, transferred to the office of the Engineer-in-Chief, (Administration Wing), Irrigation and Command Area Development Department, Hyderabad, and has been working there as such since 09.07.1990; that, before the appointment of respondent No.1, petitioner joined as Junior Assistant in Engineer-in-chief (Administration Wing), Hyderabad, on 01.04.1990, however, on tenure basis; that, subsequently, petitioner had submitted a representation to the competent authority seeking conversion of her tenure appointment as that of regular appointment by transfer and that pursuant to the proceedings vide Rc/ENC/G4/67100/92, dated 15.04.1995, the said request has been considered by the competent authority and her services in the capacity of Junior Assistant had been reckoned on regular basis with effect from 01.04.1990, instead of treating her services as on tenure basis. As a result, for all purposes, her services have been absorbed as Junior Assistant with effect from 01.04.1990 on regular basis. 5. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.1 had filed O.A.No.6872 of 1996, before the Tribunal, which was eventually, disposed of, by order, dated 19.11.1996, with certain observations and directions. 6. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, it is apt to extract the said order, dated 19.11.1996, passed by the Tribunal, which is thus: “This O.A. is filed to quash the proceedings dated 18-05-1995 and office order dated 22.05.1995 and to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion in any existing vacancy of Senior Assistant. “The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are vacancies in the category of Senior Assistants in the department, and the applicant, being the senior most, is eligible to be promoted as Senior Assistants. If that be so, we direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion as Senior Assistant, if he is eligible and qualified for such post, and if he falls within the zone of consideration along with other eligible and qualified candidates, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The O.A. is disposed of.” 7. From the above, it is obvious that the said O.A., was disposed of only with a simple direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the case of respondent No.1, if there are any vacancies in the category of Senior Assistants in the department, for promotion as Senior Assistant, subject to the eligibility and qualification. Pursuant to the said direction of the Tribunal, the case of respondent No.1 was considered and rejected by the department, through order, dated 10.01.1997, on the ground that his case would be considered in accordance with the seniority, but the same was not subsequently pursued. 8. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 has approached the Tribunal, by way of filing O.A.No.742 of 1997, which was eventually allowed, against which the present writ petition came to be filed. 9. As could be seen from the facts on record, which have already been referred to, the case of petitioner, on her representation, was considered by the department and was treated to be appointed as Junior Assistant on regular basis with effect from 01.04.1990, for all purposes, whereas, respondent No.1 was appointed on 09.07.1990. Obviously, respondent No.1 was appointed subsequent to the petitioner. 10. It is to be noted that consideration of the case of petitioner, as Junior Assistant, on regular basis, with effect from 01.04.1990, was not challenged by respondent No.1 and that is the reason why the seniority list had been prepared accordingly. Then naturally, petitioner was placed at a higher slot than respondent No1, vide proceedings, dated 18.05.1995, which was not at all challenged. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the seniority of petitioner has rightly been considered and confirmed by the competent authority with effect from 01.04.1990, since the same had attained the finality as it was not challenged and as a corollary, the seniority between petitioner and respondent No.1 was fixed, inasmuch as, respondent No.1 was appointed on 09.07.1990, he would and should be figured as junior to petitioner. 11. Keeping these facts in mind, which are not in dispute, the seniority list had been prepared by the competent authority. Furthermore, it is also not in dispute that respondent No.1 has joined the service on 09.07.1990 and as he was found surplus staff, he was absorbed in the office of the Engineer-in-Chief, (Administration Wing) Irrigation and Command Area Development Department, Hyderabad, on the condition that he would take the last rank in the seniority list of Junior Assistants. 12. As already noticed above, the transformation of the status of petitioner as a tenure based employee to that of regular employee, on her representation, with effect from 01.04.1990, had not been challenged, at any point of time, by respondent No.1. 13. In that view of the matter, petitioner should necessarily be treated as a senior by virtue of her date of appointment as Junior Assistant on regular basis and as a consequence thereof, the name of petitioner has to be essentially shown as senior to respondent No.1. These facts, which are on record, were not property appreciated by the Tribunal. 14. For the foregoing, the impugned order, dated 07.11.2003, passed by the Tribunal, in O.A.No.742 of 1997, is liable to be set aside. 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order, dated 07.11.2003, passed by the Tribunal, in O.A.No.742 of 1997. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ​_____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 05TH FEBRUARY 2008 KLP