THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.6655 of 2002 & 23598 of 2009 and 5283 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner kept himself, the management of the schools, in which he is working, and the authorities of the Education Department busy, in fighting the litigation for the past about two decades. Two writ petitions are instituted by the petitioner, and W.P.No.5283 of 2010, filed by the management, are part of the episode. Since they are interconnected, the writ petitions are disposed of through a common order. The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) by the Education Wing of the Convention of the Baptist Churches of the Northern Circars (CBCNC) on 30.09.1989 and he was posted in one of the schools. In 1995, he was working in C.B.M. Boarding Upper Primary School, Avanigadda and was promoted as Principal in that school on 25.06.1996. The then Correspondent promoted the petitioner as School Assistant on the next day i.e., 26.06.2006. However, on a representation made by many Teachers stating that the petitioner figures at 14th place in the seniority list of SGTs, the District Educational Officer (DEO), Krishna District, kept the orders of promotion in abeyance. The petitioner filed W.P.No.13277 of 1996 feeling aggrieved by the orders, dated 30.06.1996 passed by the DEO. It appears that the writ petition was disposed of directing that the appellate authority, the Regional Joint Director of Inspection (RJD) shall examine the validity of order of promotion, passed in favour of the petitioner, in the appeal, filed by one Mr.D.K.Prabhakar, Telugu Pandit Grade-II. The appellate authority passed an order, dated 28.03.1997, giving certain directions to the DEO, to be followed in the matter of making promotions to the post of School Assistants. The management of the school, on the one hand, and Prabhakar, on the other hand, filed W.P.Nos.27447 of 1998 and 5580 of 1999, respectively. Those writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the DEO to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the orders passed by the RJD. Through order, dated 07.08.2000, the DEO reverted the petitioner to the post of SGT, holding that he is far junior to many SGTs in the institutions. In the light of orders of reversion, the management of the institution transferred the petitioner to a school at Burralanka as SGT. W.P.No.6655 of 2002 is filed against it. An interim order was passed in W.P.No.6655 of 2002 and on the basis of the same, the petitioner was continuing as Head Master, in the school at Avanigadda. That writ petition was dismissed on 17.01.2009. As a result, the Correspondent of the institution issued proceedings dated 20.10.2009, requiring the petitioner to handover the charge to Smt.Ch.Sarala Devi and the petitioner was relieved of the responsibilities. W.P.No.23598 of 2009 is filed against it. Certain anomalies were noticed in the fixation of pay of the petitioner. In W.P.M.P.No.30649 of 2009 filed in W.P.No.23598 of 2009, this Court passed an interim order on 04.11.2009, staying all further proceedings, in pursuance of the order, dated 20.10.2009. Taking note of the same, the DEO issued proceedings dated 02.03.2010 requiring the management to submit salary bills showing the petitioner, i.e. N.Aharon Raju, as though he is School Assistant and Head Master. The management i.e. CBCNC Upper Primary School, Avanigadda filed W.P.No.5283 of 2010, challenging the same. The petitioner contends that though the DEO passed an order, dated 07.08.2000, reverting him to the post of SGT, the same is deemed to have been set aside by the orders of the Director of School Education passed on 18.06.2001. He submits that no opportunity was given to him before the order of reversion was passed and he cannot be denied the benefit of the promotion for the post of School Assistant. The authorities of the Education Department, on the one hand, and the management of the school, on the other hand, filed counter- affidavits. They submit that the petitioner was wrongly promoted as School Assistant on 26.06.1996 ignoring the seniority of as many as 13 SGTs and within four days the anomaly was rectified by placing the orders of promotion in abeyance. They contend that the petitioner is not entitled for promotion, and he has been enjoying the status for the past several years, on the strength of one interim order or the other. Heard Sri P.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for School Education and Sri Ram Mohan Mahadeva, learned counsel for the Management. The petitioner was appointed as SGT, on 30.09.1989. The management has established several educational institutions and almost all of which are admitted to grant-in-aid. The teachers appointed by same management in different schools are treated on par with each other and irrespective of the institutions in which they work, common seniority is to be maintained. Some controversy persisted as to whether the mandal or district must be treated as unit for this purpose. Be that as it may, by 1996, the petitioner figured at serial No.14, in the seniority list of SGT. One post of School Assistant has arisen. For reasons best known to him, the then correspondent promoted the petitioner as School Assistant through orders, dated 26.06.1996, ignoring the seniority of as many as 13 SGTs. This, naturally evoked protest from the seniors. All of them made representations to the DEO. Immediately the DEO passed an order, dated 30.06.1996 keeping the order of promotion of the petitioner in abeyance. Writ petitions and statutory appeals ensued. It is not necessary to refer to them in detail. The fact remains that through an order, dated 07.08.2000, the DEO reverted the petitioner to the post of SGT. Though an effort was made by him to challenge the same, in inter-departmental appeals, there is nothing on record to reveal that the order, dated 07.08.2000 reverting the petitioner to the post of SGT, was set aside. The contention of the petitioner that the order of reversion is deemed to have been set aside by the Director of School Education through proceedings, dated 18.06.2001, cannot be accepted. Even according to the petitioner, the Director did nothing more than issuing certain guidelines to the DEO, to be followed in the matter of promotion. The order dated 07.08.2000, was not interfered with expressly or by necessary implication. It is obviously for that reason, that the petitioner filed W.P.No.12964 of 2001, challenging the order dated 07.08.2000, impliedly admitting that the order dated 18.06.2001 passed by the Director, has no impact upon the order of reversion. No positive result ensued in that writ petition. Further, in none of these writ petitions, the order dated 07.08.2000 is in challenge. The petitioner is not able to point out any serious infirmity in it. The same came to be passed by the DEO, on the basis of the directions issued by this Court as well as the Appellate Authority i.e. RJD. The petitioner was already party to the same and the DEO did not independently decide the rights of the parties. He has simply verified the seniority list and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner ought not to have been promoted, ignoring the seniority of other SGTs. As long as the petitioner does not dispute that he figured at serial No.14, in the seniority list of SGTs, by no means he can justify his promotion. Various proceedings that are challenged in the two writ petitions filed by the petitioner are only consequential in nature. Once the petitioner was reverted as SGT, there is no way he can retain the status of School Assistant or that of Head Master. The management is under obligation to follow the seniority in the matter of promotion, be it to the post of School Assistant or Head Master. There are no merits in the writ petitions filed by the petitioner. Hence, W.P.Nos.6655 of 2002 and 23598 of 2009 are dismissed. The necessity to file W.P.No.5283 of 2010 has arisen on account of an order passed by the DEO, which in turn, is on the basis of an interim order passed in W.P.No.23598 of 2009. Once that writ petition is dismissed, the very basis for the orders impugned in W.P.No.5283 of 2010 ceases to exist. W.P.No.5283 of 2010 is allowed and the order challenged therein is set aside. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.09.11.2010. GJ