IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 2166 of 2006 Between: Ch. Rami Reddy, S/o. Pratap Reddy, O/o. SDO Phones-I, Karimnagar, BSNL, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The General Manager Telecom District Karimnagar, BSNL, Karimnagar District. 2 The Chief General Manager, A.P. Telecom Circle, BSNL, Doorsanchar Bhavan, Abids, Hyderabad. 3 K. Monohar Reddy, Lineman, BSNL, O/o. SDE MM Stores, New G.M. Bldgs, - Office, Near natraj Theatre, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a order or orders, direction or directions, writ or writs particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the 1st respondent in fixing the seniority of the petitioner below to the 3rd respondent vide Lr.No.E-3-263/TMs/Gradation List/2003-2004/IV/2 dt. 16.12.2003 and rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide Lr.No.E-3- 263/TMs/Gr.List/2005-06/IV/KAA/63 dt. 29.7.2005 and posting the 3rd respondent as District Telecom Store Lineman, Karimnagar vide its order No.E-2/SLM/KAA/05-06/52 dt. 10.1.2006 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the rules on the subject matter and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently hold that the petitioner is senior to the 3rd respondent and as such eligible for being posted as District Telecom Store Lineman in the place of the 3rd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.A.RAGHU KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.(SC FOR B.S.N.L) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 2166 of 2006 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in fixing the seniority of the petitioner below the 3rd respondent vide Lr.No.E-3-263/TMs/Gradation List/2003-2004/IV/2 dated 16.12.2003 and rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide Lr.No.E-3- 263/TMs/Gr.List/2005-06/IV/KAA/63 dated 29.7.2005 and posting the 3rd respondent as District Telecom Store Lineman, Karimnagar vide its Order No.E-2/SLM/KAA/05-06/52 DATED 10.1.2006 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the rules on the subject matter and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the erstwhile Department of Telecommunications as Lineman on 25.9.1979 in Karimnagar District and the 3rd respondent joined as Lineman on 25.9.1979. In the gradation list dated 6.11.1995 of permanent linemen as on 1.7.1995, he was shown at Sl.No.15 whereas the 3rd respondent was shown at Sl.No.18. Subsequently, the Department of Telecom introduced a cadre-restructuring scheme and a cadre called Telephone Mechanic is brought into existence in place of Lineman, Wireman, Cable Jointer, Sub- Inspectors etc. As per the Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecom Lr.No.27-2/94-TE/II (II) dated 29.3.1994 a separate list of eligibility from different cadres has to be prepared for each year of recruitment to the post of Telephone Mechanic and the eligible candidates have to be promoted to the cadre of Telephone Mechanics on the basis of such eligibility list and the inter se seniority has to be fixed on the basis of marks obtained in the training of Phone Mechanic. Petitioner was selected for the training of Phone Mechanic in the year 1992 and posted as such w.e.f. 23.1.1993. The 3rd respondent underwent the training of Phone Mechanic in 1992 in the subsequent batch and was appointed as such on 11.5.1994. When OTBP promotions were given to him and the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 11.1.1996 in the cadre of Lineman and also the proceedings dated 23.4.1996 in the cadre of Phone Mechanic, including the service of the Line Man, he was shown at Sl.No.2 and the 3rd respondent was shown at Sl.No.4. Even in the proceedings dated 20.3.1997 whereunder the probation of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent was declared, he was shown at Sl.No.3 and the 3rd respondent was shown at Sl.No.5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent issued provisional seniority list of Phone Mechanics in Karimnagar SSA as on 1.7.2002 showing the 3rd respondent at Sl.No.10 and placing him at Sl.No.12, in utter disregard to all the rules and regulations available on the subject matter, vide Lr.No.E-3-263/TMs/Gradation List/2003-2004/IV/2 dated 16.12.2003. Petitioner made a representation dated 1.3.2005 raising objections against the said provisional list, but the same was rejected vide proceedings dated 29.7.2005 of the 1st respondent, on the ground that the seniority list for same year trainees is based on the Telecom Mechanic Post training marks. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent has called for the options to the post of District Telecom Store Lineman from amongst the senior most Linemen/Phone Mechanics. The selection for the said post is purely on the basis of seniority, but the 1st respondent has not finalized the seniority list of Phone Mechanics. The seniority list available as on today is only provisional, for which he had already raised objections, but the same were not considered and rejected on illegal grounds. Now the 1st respondent has selected the 3rd respondent as District Telecom Store Lineman, in utter disregard to the seniority of the petitioner, vide proceedings dated 10.1.2006. Hence, this writ petition. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is admitted that the petitioner joined the Department on 25.9.1979 as Lineman and subsequently appointed as Telephone Mechanic on 29.1.1993. It is further stated that according to the guidelines received from time to time a yearly select panel was prepared from eligible linemen cadre to the number of posts sanctioned to Karimnagar SSA. The candidates were deputed from Phone Mechanic training centers for SSA’s. So, the petitioner was also sent for training from 20.4.1992 to 10.7.1992 at CTTC, Kakinada and appointed as Phone Mechanic on 29.1.1993. The 3rd respondent was sent to training from 27.7.1992 to 16.10.1992 and appointed as Phone Mechanic on 11.5.1994 as per the DPC list, before preparation of select panel. The seniority was fixed for the same year trainees according to the posts sanctioned, basing on the Phone Mechanic training marks. The petitioner got 682 out of 900 marks in the Telephone Mechanic training and the 3rd respondent got 726 out of 900 and basing on their marks, their seniority was fixed at Sl.Nos. 12 and 10 respectively. The seniority list in the cadre of Telephone Mechanics was prepared as on 1.7.2002 and circulated among the staff vide Lr.No.E3- 263/PM’s/Gradation list/2003-04/IV/2 dated 16.12.2003 with a circular that if there is any objection the same may be raised within one month. The petitioner submitted representation on 1.3.2005 stating that in the year 1992 there were only 3 posts and three candidates were to be selected for that year. The said representation was rejected by the GMTD, Karimnagar vide Lr.No.E3-263/TM’S/Gr.List/2005-06/IV/63 dated 29.7.2005. Further, the GMTD, Karimnagar has called for options to the post of District Store Lineman, Karimnagar under the Sde/MM, Karimnagar and only three options were received. Among the three candidates opted, the 3rd respondent was selected as Division Telecom Store Lineman vide GMTD, Karimnagar Lr.No.E-2/SLM/KAA/200506/52 dated 10.1.2006 as per the seniority list available from 1.7.2002. The petitioner was not selected as he was junior to the 3rd respondent. The selection was done according to the final seniority list. The 3rd respondent also filed counter affidavit almost taking the similar stand as that of respondents 2 and 3. He further pleaded that he got more marks and as such he is entitled to be treated as senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Phone Mechanic. Further, both of them have undergone training but there was some delay in giving posting and that does not mean that the petitioner can become senior. Heard both sides. At the outset, I am of the opinion that the rationale adopted by respondents 1 and 2 in fixing the seniority of the petitioner vis-à-vis the respondent No.3 is not supported by any Rule or Regulation. The only justification made for overlooking the petitioner was that the petitioner got 682 out of 900 marks in the Telephone Mechanic training and the 3rd respondent got 726 out of 900 and basing on their marks, their seniority was fixed at Sl.Nos. 12 and 10 respectively. It is not the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that the 3rd respondent was appointed prior to completion of training and appointment of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner was appointed as Phone Mechanic on 29.1.1993. Even according to the counter filed by the official respondents, the 3rd respondent was appointed as Phone Mechanic on 11.5.1994. Thus, the only justification made for altering the seniority list was that the petitioner obtained lesser marks than the 3rd respondent in the Telephone Mechanic training, therefore, 3rd respondent was shown at Sl.No.10 whereas the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.12. This is not supported by any Rule or Regulation. Firstly, securing of marks in the test by itself would not decide the seniority; it would only make a candidate eligible for being promoted out of the qualified candidates. Admittedly, after passing of the test, the petitioner was appointed as Phone Mechanic on 29.1.1993, whereas, respondent No.3 was appointed on 11.5.1994 as per the DPC list. Therefore, looking from any angle, the question of respondent No.3 marching over the petitioner in the cadre of Phone Mechanic, as senior, would not arise. For all the above reasons, it is declared that the petitioner is senior in the cadre of Phone Mechanic than that of respondent No.3. Therefore, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to treat the petitioner as senior to 3rd respondent in the cadre of Phone Mechanic and then consider his further promotion with all consequential benefits, as per his eligibility. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 17-12-2008. MVB.