THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.12075 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.No.155 Housing (R.H-I), Department, dated 26-05-2005 and the consequential letter of the 2nd respondent bearing No.A1/103/96, dated 31-05-2005. Under G.O.Rt.No.155, dated 26-05-2005, issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioner, who was working as Deputy Executive Engineer, was sought to be reverted as Assistant Engineer and the same was implemented by the 2nd respondent by issuing Lr.No.A1/103/96, dated 31-05- 2005. It appears, the petitioner was initially appointed as Architectural draftsman in the 2nd respondent Corporation on a consolidated pay on 27-08- 1983. Further, he was appointed as Supervisor/Assistant Engineer under work experience scheme with effect from 02-11-1983. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent Corporation has regularized his services in the year 1992 as Assistant Engineer. While so, the 2nd respondent Corporation had prepared the provisional seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Engineers showing the name of the petitioner at Sl.No.61 stating that he was entitled to reckon the seniority from 02-11-1983 and not from 27-08-1983 when he was initially appointed as Architectural draftsman. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent on 20-12-1997 requesting to fix his seniority considering his services as Architectural draftsman with effect from 27-08-1983. Accordingly, the 1st respondent through his letter No.159/RH.I/98-2, dated 01-04-1998, clarified the matter stating as under:- “In the reference 1st cited Sri Bh.Srinivas, Assistant Engineer (Housing) has requested the Government to refix his seniority considering his services as Arch. Draughtsman from 27-8-1983 to 2-11-1983 treating the date of his joining as Arch. Draughtsman which is an equivalent cadre to that of Assistant Engineer with equal scale of pay. Government after careful examination of the case have agreed to regularize the service of the petitioner with effect from the date of 27-08-1983 in the category of Assistant Engineer instead of 03-11-1983 considering his date of joining as Arch. Draughtsman. The Managing Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, is therefore requested to take necessary action to revise his seniority at the appropriate place.” Further, the 1st respondent through his letter No.3024/RH1/98-1, dated 30-06-1998, also informed the said clarification to the 2nd respondent, which reads as under:- “I am directed to invite your attention to your letter cited. Though the qualification of L.A.A. is preferable for appointment as APCH Draughtsman none the less L.C.E. qualification will also serve the purpose. The pay scale of Arch. Draughtsman and the AE are one and the same and they belong to the same Engineering service. Therefore under the chapter/II Sec.III and rule 15 (c) of APCHCL General Service Rules, his seniority may be counted from the day he joined in the APSHCL i.e., 27-08-1983. I, therefore, request you to implement the government orders accordingly.” Thus, the seniority of the petitioner was restored from 27-08-1983. However, it appears, aggrieved thereby, Sri K.Kishore Mitra and another filed W.P.No.30264 of 1998 before this Court. In the said writ petition, in the counter filed by the 2nd respondent herein, it is stated that the appointment of the petitioner and reckoning of his seniority were perfectly in order and the same were done as per law. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said counter read as under:- “I submit that the 3rd respondent represented for revision of his seniority by taking the date of appointment of Arch. Draughtsman and his application was transmitted to the Government, Housing Department vide Lr.No.159/RH1/98, dated 08-01-1998 and the Government was informed vide Lr.No.A1(2)/6391/97, dated 28-01-1998 that the individual was initially appointed as Arch. Draughtsman and he was subsequently selected as Supervisor and his services were regularized as per G.O.Ms.No.182, taking the date of his joining the post of Assistant Engineer, i.e. 2.11.83. It is also a fact that Sri K.John Moses and others have raised objections for the revision of the seniority of the 3rd respondent taking his initial appointment of Arch. Draughtsman and the objection was forwarded to the Government vide this office Lr.No.A1/6391/97, dated 22-06-1998 for further examination. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.33, Housing (RH) Department, dated 26-05-1998 approved the staffing pattern and revised Service Rules of employees of A.P.State Housing Corporation Limited according to which the Arch. Draughtsmen and Assistant Engineers shown as Engineering category and carries the same scales of pay. The Government Housing Department vide Lr.No.3024/RH1/98-1, dated 30-06-1998, stated that though the qualification of LAA is preferable for Arch.Draughtsman nonetheless the LCE qualification will also serve the purpose and directed that as the pay scale of Assistant Engineers and Arch.Draughtsman are one and the same and both belongs to same Engineering group and revised the seniority of the 3rd respondent from the date of his joining duty in the 2nd respondent Corporation i.e., from 27-08-83 as Arch. Draughtsman and as per Chapter II, Sec.III and Rule 15 (c) of the Revised Service Rules. I further submit that it is a fact that the Engineers Association vide their letter, dated 07-10-1998 expressed their objection, the same was forwarded to the Government vide Lr.No.A1(2)/6391/97-2, dated 03-10-1998 and also intimated to the Association members that the seniority of the 3rd respondent was revised as per the clarification orders issued by the Government in its Lr.No.3024/RH1/98, dated 30-06-1998 as per Revised Service Rules. I submit that the 3rd respondent has been promoted as Dy. Executive Engineer by taking the initial appointment i.e., 27-08-83 and as per G.O.No.247, Housing (RH) Department, dated 29-10-1998 vide this office proceedings No.A1(1)/103/98-I, dated 09-11-1998 subject to the result of the writ petition. I submit that the seniority of the 3rd respondent in the cadre of Assistant Engineer was revised as per the directions of the Government which is competent authority to prescribe rules/qualifications for any/all the posts in the 2nd respondent Corporation.” Of course, it is submitted across the bar that the said writ petition was withdrawn and as such, the Government itself has taken up the matter on its own at the instance of the 2nd respondent and accordingly, the Government issued a show-cause notice in G.O.Rt.No.243, dated 11-08-2003, asking the petitioner to submit explanation as to why his seniority shall not be reckoned from 02-11-1983 instead of 27-08-1983. Against the said show- cause notice, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court and the same was disposed of directing the petitioner to submit his explanation and the respondents therein were directed to consider the matter after receiving the explanation. It appears, after receiving the explanation, the Government passed the order in G.O.Rt.No.155, which is impugned in this writ petition. The only ground on which the petitioner is sought to be reverted to the post of Assistant Engineer is that he did not possess requisite qualification at the time of his initial appointment as Draftsman with effect from 27-08-1983. In fact, in this regard, earlier when the matter was referred to the Government, the very same Housing Department gave a clarification on 01-04-1998 and 30-06-1998, as noticed above. Further, it was the subject matter of the writ petition before this Court. However, in view of withdrawal of the said writ petition, the said proceedings were subsisting and in the meanwhile, the Government has taken up the present enquiry. But, however, it is not known at whose instance the matter is taken up. The action of the respondents in reversing the petitioner from the post of Deputy Executive Engineer to that of Assistant Engineer after more than 20 years on the ground that as on the date of i.e., 27-08-1983, he did not possess requisite qualification seems to be an erroneous exercise. In fact, the matter was examined by the Government in the earlier occasion and proceedings were issued clarifying that the pay scale of Arch. Draftsman and the Assistant Engineer are one and the same and they belong to the same Engineering Service. Therefore, under chapter/II Sec.III and Rule 15 (c) of APCHCL General Service Rules, the seniority of the petitioner may be counted from the day he joined in the APSHCL i.e., 27-08-1983. Therefore, it may not be proper on the part of the respondents to reverse the decision taken by them at the earliest point of time in the year 1998. Even otherwise, examining from a different angle, L.A.A. and L.C.E. is are the part of the same Civil Engineering Department, the only difference is Architectural and Civil Engineering. Apart from that, the petitioner has gained the experience of more than 20 years in the meanwhile and he cannot be denied the service of three months from 27-08-1983 to 03- 11-1983 and he cannot be reverted to the post of Assistant Engineer on the ground that as on the date of initial appointment, he did not possess requisite qualification. It appears, the same has done only at the instance of somebody behind the scene. In this regard, however, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a judgment reported in M.BUCHA REDDY Vs. V.BHAGYAMMA AND OTHERS[1], wherein it is stated that the appointments though made not according to prescribed Rules cannot be disturbed after a long lapse of about 10 years. Paragraph 12 of the said judgment reads as under:- “In Ashok Kumar Yadad V. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 454, the Supreme Court while holding that allocation of 33.3 percent of marks for viva voice test as arbitrary, however, did not interfere with the appointments made and instead directed the Haryana Public Service Commission to give one more chance to the aggrieved candidates. In State of U.P. Vs. Rafiquddin AIR 1988 SC 162, the Apex Court declined to quash the appointments made by the UPPSC to the cadre of District Munsifs though a finding was recorded that the recruitment was contrary to the Rules. Likewise, in Miss Shainda Hasan V. State of U.P. AIR 1990 SC 1381, though the age relaxation given to a principal of a college was held to be illegal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, still declined to strike down the appointment, but, however, directed the Vice-Chancellor of the Lucknow University to grant necessary approval for the appointment of the appellant therein as the Principle of the Girls College, Lucknow. In all these cases, the fact that the respective parties were working in the post for considerable time weighed with the Hon’ble Supreme Court in not interfering with the appointments.” Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that a settled position of a person in the Department cannot be disturbed for petty reasons after more than 20 years. In support of the said contention, he relied upon the judgment in M.A.KAREEM AND OTHERS Vs. S.RAMAMONOHARA RAO AND OTHERS[2]. Paragraphs 14 and 16 thereof read as follows:- “By way of a preliminary objection, Mr.Subba Rao, the learned counsel appearing for some of the officers impleaded as respondents in this petition, has drawn our attention to the fact that earlier a writ application, being W.P.No.106 of 1980, was filed by some of the employees of the central office making similar claim of seniority and the present petitioners specifically stated that their case would be governed by the judgment in the earlier writ petition which was ultimately dismissed by this Court on August 8, 1986 (M.Nirmala V. State of Andhra Pradesh). Mr.Subba Rao contends that after the dismissal of the earlier case, the petitioners now cannot be permitted to urge any new ground in support of their claim. The reply on behalf of the petitioners is that if the earlier writ application had been allowed, they would also be entitled to succeed, but after its dismissal their claim cannot be rejected without examination of the additional questions which did not arise in the earlier case. Besides the weakness in the case of the petitioners as mentioned above, the delay of 8 years on their part to initiate legal remedy is fatal and these writ petitions are fit to be rejected on this ground alone. The writ applications are, therefore, dismissed with costs payable to be respondents represented by Mr.Subba Rao.” For the above reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits that flow out of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 13-04-2010 Prv [1] 1999 (6) ALD 581 (DB) [2] 1991 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 183