IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 534 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 4.4.2000 in WP NO : 1718 OF 1994 on the file of the High Court.) Between: G. Koteswara Rao ..... APPELLANT AND R. Balasubramanyam and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.T.S.ANAND The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR W.A.NO. 534 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per Sri P.V. Sanjay Kumar, J) The writ appeal is ﬁled by the third respondent in the writ petition aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 4.4.2000 directing the respondent authorities to take into consideration the objections ﬁled by the writ petitioners and such other objections they may intend to ﬁle, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and further directing that all the objections of the writ petitioners and other persons who ﬁled their objections shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed ﬁxing the seniority of the persons concerned in the category of UDC. Sri Venkat Ramana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri D. V. Sitarama Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the third respondent in the writ petition who is the appellant before us was appointed on 20.1.1987 and passed the departmental test within the prescribed time i.e., on 11.5.1988, whereas the writ petitioners were appointed on 22.1.1982, 18.2.1982 and 8.1.1982 respectively, but they could pass the departmental test only on 17.12.1985, 17.12.1985 and 8.6.1987 respectively i.e., beyond the period of two chances from the date of appointment. According to him, this would disentitle them to assail the seniority aﬀorded to the appellant by way of the proceedings impugned in the writ petition. This objection, as well as such other objections that the appellant may wish to raise, can as well be raised by the appellant before the respondent authorities. The learned single Judge amply protected the interests of all the persons concerned by directing not only the writ petitioners, but also other persons who were entitled, to ﬁle their objections with regard to the ﬁxation of the seniority in the category of UDC and the respondent authorities are bound to take into consideration all such objections, while deciding the issue. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed and the order of the learned single Judge is conﬁrmed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J _____________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J Dt.11.8.2008 KR ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA { }