THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.23246 OF 1999 Dated: 08.10.2010 Between : Dr. D.N. Kishiore Gupta … Petitioner And 1. The Vice-Chairman, A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society, Gaganvihar, M.J. Road, Hyderabad., and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.23246 OF 1999 ORDER: The A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society issued a notification in the year 1984 inviting applications for filling up the vacancies of lecturers in different faculties. In response to the said notification, the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent herein had applied and both of them were appointed as Lecturer in Commerce and Lecturer in Chemistry respectively vide proceedings dated 6.11.1984. Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner joined as Lecturer in Commerce on 16.11.1984 whereas the 4th respondent joined the service on 22.11.1984 as Lecturer in Chemistry. While so, a provisional seniority list was published in the year 1996 in which the petitioner and the 4th respondent were shown at Sl.No.10 and Sl.No.7 respectively. The petitioner submitted his objections stating that as per the date of joining the service, the petitioner should have been placed above the 4th respondent. The said objection was not accepted and the final seniority list was published on 28.7.1997. The petitioner made a detailed representation seeking review of the seniority and in response to the same, the 2nd respondent by letter dated 13.10.1997 informed the petitioner that the seniority was rightly fixed as per the merit and roster in the selections. It was also stated that the date of joining the duty was irrelevant for fixation of the seniority as per the rules. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, it is stated that the candidate selected in the interviews held on 26.10.1984 and 27.10.1984 by the Selection Committee were kept in roster point basing on merit and community to which they belong and that the seniority was fixed up as per the said communal roster points in which they were selected. The petitioner’s representation to fix his seniority is basing on his date of entry was examined and by proceedings dated 13.10.1987 he was informed that the seniority of the Lecturers was fixed as per merit and roster points in the selections and that the date of joining duty was not the criteria. It is further stated that the A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society is having its own rules for filling up the posts and so far as the seniority is concerned, it is being fixed as per their selection in communal roster points placed on their merit in selection. The guidelines issued by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education are not applicable to A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society and therefore the petitioner’s contentions are not tenable. The 4th respondent in his counter stated that the seniority was rightly fixed based on the seniority in the selection list by following the communal roster point and that there was no violation of any rules or regulations as alleged by the petitioner. It is also stated that the 4th respondent had been appointed as Principal of A.P. Residential Degree College, Nagarjuna Sagar on 22.11.2007 on regular basis and that he had been discharging the duties as Principal since then. The petitioner, who appeared in person, vehemently contended that the date of joining duty alone shall be the criteria for fixing the inter se seniority and that the impugned action of the 1st respondent in fixing the seniority as per the merit and roster in the selections is illegal. It is further contended that the efficiency / merit of the petitioner who is working in Commerce Department cannot be compared with the merit of the 4th respondent who is working in Chemistry Department and therefore the seniority fixed by the 1st respondent on the basis of the merit in the selections amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power. I have also heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the notification in the year 1984 was issued inviting applications for filling up the vacancies of Lecturers in various subjects including Commerce and Chemistry. The candidates were selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee and all the vacancies were filled up by a common order dated 6.11.1984. The roster points against which each selected candidate was appointed was mentioned in the appointment order itself. The 4th respondent was admittedly placed above the petitioner in the appointment order dated 6.11.1984. However the petitioner claims seniority over the 4th respondent on the ground that he joined the service on 16.11.1984 whereas the 4th respondent joined on 22.11.1984. Therefore the question that arises for consideration is whether the date of joining the service alone shall be the criteria for fixing the inter se seniority among the petitioner and the 4th respondent who were simultaneously appointed. A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society (for short, ‘the Society’) is constituted as an autonomous body by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. It has been registered under Telangana Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 F. The service conditions of the employees of the said Society are governed by different set of rules approved by the Board of Governors of the Society. As per the bye- laws of the society, the post of Lecturer falls in Category-IV of Class-II of the posts in the society. The appointing authority in respect of the said category is the Secretary of the Society and the appointments shall be made on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. However, either the bye-laws of the society or the recruitment rules applicable to the services of the society did not contain any specific provision with regard to fixation of seniority among the persons in the service of the society. Since the appointment order dated 6.11.1984 did not say as to when the appointment should take effect and moreover there is no specific rule with regard to fixation of seniority in the services of the society, I am of the considered opinion that the appointing authority himself has to fix the order of preference either to satisfy the rule of reservation or for other reasons and the same shall be the basis for determining the seniority. Such decision of the appointing authority, as held by the Supreme Court in R.S. MAKASHI v. I.M. MENON[1], cannot be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable or unfair. It is explained in the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 that the inter se seniority among the persons in the services of the society is being fixed as per the roster points in which they were selected. So far as the petitioner and the 4th respondent are concerned, it is stated that the candidates selected by the Selection Committee were given the appointment as per the communal roster points and the same has been followed while fixing the seniority. It is relevant to note that the petitioner never challenged the communal roster points against which the petitioner and the 4th respondent were appointed in the proceedings dated 6.11.1984. It is also not in dispute that the services of both the petitioner and 4th respondent were regularized w.e.f. 22.11.1984. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold the order of preference fixed by the 2nd respondent or the inter se seniority determined on the basis of the said order of preference is arbitrary or unreasonable on any ground whatsoever. The petitioner’s contention that as per the proceedings of the Commissionerate of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad, dated 4.2.1999, the date of joining alone shall be the criteria for fixing inter se seniority is also untenable as the said proceedings have no application to the Colleges in the A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner’s contention that he should be placed above the 4th respondent in the seniority list basing on the date of joining is without any substance. Accordingly, the Writ Petition, which is devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI,J. Dt. 08.10.2010 gbs However the appointments under the order dated 6.11.1984 were not with effect from the date of assumption of charge by the selected candidates. The order dated 6.11.1984 had only mentioned the date on or before which the selected candidates shall report to the Principal of the college and nothing was mentioned in the said order as to when the appointment shall take effect. [1] AIR 1982 SC 101