HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.15560 OF 2000 Dated:20-07-2010 Between: K.A.V.Shukachandra S/o. K. Lakshmipathi …. Petitioner AND The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, New Delhi and others. …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.15560 OF 2000 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Bhavani Prasad) This Writ Petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, dated 30-09-1999 in O.A. No.211 of 1998, dismissing the O.A. without costs. 2. The factual background for the writ petition is that the writ petitioner filed the Original Application claiming that he is entitled for promotion to HSG Grade II Cadre with effect from 15-08-1993 on par with his junior M. Raghu Rama Rao with all consequential benefits. He claimed that he was appointed as Postal Assistant in Karimnagar with effect from 20-05-1976 whereas M. Raghu Rama Rao joined as Postal Assistant on 01-06-1976. Subsequently, both he and M. Raghu Rama Rao passed the examination for promotion as UDC in 1983 and they joined in the circle office on 24-06-1983. While so, M. Raghu Rama Rao, junior, was promoted as HSG Grade II under BCR scheme with effect from 15-08-1983 ignoring the claim of the petitioner and his representations to the officials. M. Raghu Rama Rao was promoted though he did not complete the requisite service of 26 years to be on par with his juniors and on the same analogy, the petitioner also claims his right for promotion. He further submitted that though in the seniority list of UDCs, Raghu Rama Rao was placed at serial No.32 and he was placed at serial No.45, the ranking in the UDC examination will not affect the seniority of the petitioner with reference to the length of service. The petitioner relied on a letter dated 03-08-1997 of the Government of India, for such a claim and sought for the reliefs. 3. While Raghu Rama Rao was not made a party to the O.A., the official respondents contested the claim of the petitioner, contending that Raghu Rama Rao was promoted on par with his junior Rasool while the petitioner could not be considered on par with Raghu Rama Rao as he was junior to him in the UD Cadre. The seniority of persons in UD Cadre prepared on 01-07-1986 was never challenged by the petitioner and in the absence of any challenge to the said gradation list for so long, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any promotion on the basis of his total length of service in both the cadres. The promotion of Raghu Rama Rao before completion of 26 years of service is only to place him on par with his junior. Therefore, the official respondents desired that the Original Application be dismissed. 4. The Tribunal by the impugned order considered the rival contentions and firstly observed that no order pertaining to Raghu Rama Rao can be passed in the O.A., as he is not a party to it. The Tribunal further noted that when the promotion of Raghu Rama Rao was to be on par with his junior Rasool and when the petitioner did not challenge the seniority list issued on 01-07-1986, he cannot complain of any discrimination. The Tribunal further noted that none of the juniors to the petitioner were given BCR promotion and that Raghu Rama Rao joined later than the petitioner as a Postal Assistant, cannot be a reason to equate Raghu Rama Rao and the petitioner. Therefore, holding that any discrimination can be complained only between equals, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. 5. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner again reiterates the grounds raised in O.A. and contended that though he did not challenge the seniority list dated 01-07-1986 and though Raghu Rama Rao was given promotion to be on par with his junior Rasool, the claim is based on a letter dated 03-08-1997 of the Government of India that promotion under TBOP/BCR is based on the length of service and not on the criterion of seniority. Therefore, he desired the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal to be reversed. 6. Learned Counsel for both the parties are heard. 7. The only point for consideration is whether the writ petitioner is entitled to be treated on par with Raghu Rama Rao in the matter of promotion to HSG Grade II, based on the total length of service in both the cadres. 8. Letter dated 03-08-1997 relied on by the writ petitioner, a copy of which is available in material papers, shows that the matter under consideration was about considering the next higher scale of pay from the date the immediate juniors became eligible for such next higher scale. It was clarified that an official will not be entitled to claim promotion under TBOP/BCR with reference to his immediate junior. If the junior is brought under Rule 38 of P & T Manual Volume IV to the Unit concerned, such an official can be entitled to claim promotion on the analogy of MBR with reference to their junior if the junior was brought to the unit in a lower grade and on the crucial date he was still working in the lower grade. Consequently, it has said that promotions under TBOP/BCR do not affect the seniority of the officials in any manner, which is based on the length of service and not criterion of seniority. 9. This letter does not in any manner appear to help the case of the writ petitioner herein as the seniority, which the writ petitioner claims, is with reference to his joining earlier to Raghu Rama Rao as Postal Assistant originally in the Postal Department and not with reference to the seniority in the higher category of UD Cadre, in which Raghu Rama Rao was admittedly shown as senior right from the gradation list dated 01-07-1986. The fact that Raghu Rama Rao fared better than the writ petitioner in the UD examination was not disputed by the writ petitioner and similarly the admitted fact that he was placed at serial No.45 whereas Raghu Rama Rao was at serial No.32 in the list. When Raghu Rama Rao was admittedly, thus, senior in the feeder category to HSG Grade II, any reference to the letter dated 03-08-1997 does not appear to entitle the writ petitioner to promotion under TBOP/BCR scheme on the basis of the length of service or the seniority in the lower category of Postal Assistant. The fact that Raghu Rama Rao did not complete requisite service of 26 years by the time of his promotion as HSG Grade II, will also be of no use as that promotion before completion of the requisite period of service was with reference to his junior being promoted earlier, consequently entitling him under the rules to get promotion on that date. The promotion of either Rasool or Raghu Rama Rao, therefore, cannot be said to create a right for the writ petitioner to claim any promotion from 15-08-1983. Therefore, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal does not appear to be susceptible to any interference on any reasonable or valid grounds. 10. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, to fail and is dismissed without costs. _______________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J July 20, 2010. __________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J KTL