THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.31438 of 2011 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) appearing for respondents 1 to 4. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring that the seniority list of the drivers appointed after 30.06.2008 notified by the second respondent – Regional Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar Region, Karimnagar, is unjust, arbitrary, contrary to Regulations and law, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to prepare seniority list afresh in accordance with Regulation 3 of APSRTC Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964 (for short ‘the Service Regulations’) and place the petitioners in the list as per their placement in the communal roster of their selection prepared in accordance with Regulation 12 of APSRTC Employees’ (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 (for short ‘the Recruitment Regulations’). The case of the petitioners is that they were initially appointed as drivers on daily wage basis in APSRTC on 01.04.1985 and 10.04.1985 and posted at Huzurabad and Karimnagar depots in the second respondent region, respectively, pursuant to the notifications, dated 25.01.1985 and 05.02.1985 issued in accordance with the Recruitment Regulations. It is their further case that the candidates selected were appointed in different depots of the second respondent region vide orders, dated 29.03.1985 and 09.04.1985 and that all the persons selected on daily wage basis were placed in timescale and regularized their services with effect from 16.10.1986. It is their further case that according to Regulation 12 of the Recruitment Regulations, selections to any category of the posts have to be in accordance with the rule of reservation and a roster of 100 points is prescribed and that if a batch of candidates is selected in a particular recruitment, they have to be appointed in accordance with their placement in the selection list i.e. communal roster. According to Regulation 3(b) of the Service Regulations, if two or more persons are simultaneously appointed, the appointing authority may fix the order of preference among them and the seniority will be determined in accordance with it. Though the candidates were initially appointed on daily wage basis, their appointment on regular basis in the time scale should be in accordance with their placement in the communal roster, as per which, their seniority is determined. It is their further case that though the petitioners were appointed in April, 1985, as per communal roster of the selections conducted on 25.01.1985 and 05.02.1985, their placement is 6 and 46. Subsequently, the petitioners were placed in the time scale on 16.10.1986 along with the candidates who were appointed in March, 1986 in the subsequent selections held on 30/31.12.1985. Respondents 5 to 7 were selected and appointed in subsequent selections and at roster point Nos.10, 17 and 44 of the second 100 point roster prepared in the second selections. The seniority list of the drivers appointed in the second respondent region up to 30.06.2008 has been notified recently and in the said seniority list, the candidates who were selected in the subsequent (second) selections conducted on 30/31.12.1985 and appointed subsequent to the petitioners in March, 1986 were shown as seniors to the petitioners though they were selected in the earlier selections held in January/February, 1985 and appointed in April, 1985. While finalizing the said seniority list, the juniors, who were appointed subsequent to the petitioners, were shown as seniors taking their date of birth as sole criterion, in violation of Regulation 3 of the Service Regulations. Therefore, the petitioners submitted representations. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners are seniors to the candidates selected and appointed subsequent to them, in the seniority list, the names of such candidates have been shown before the names of the petitioners and the same is illegal and contrary to Regulation 3 of the Service Regulations. This Court is of the opinion that having regard to the fact that the subject matter pertains to the seniority list, it is for the competent authority to consider and take appropriate steps. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners by raising objection as to the finalization of seniority list, submitted a representation on 31.10.2011 to the second respondent, who is competent to look into the aspect of seniority. The same is pending on the file of the second respondent. In that view of the matter, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the second respondent to consider representations, dated 14.09.2011 and 31.10.2011 submitted by the petitioners in regard to fixation of seniority for the post of driver, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J 3rd DECEMBER, 2011. kvni