IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 21333 of 1998 Between: P.Koteswara aRao ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Customs, Representing Union of India, Custom House, Visakhapatnam and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Assailing the order dated 16.7.1998 made in O.A. No. 268 of 1996 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, dismissing the same rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization as Preventive Officer retrospectively with effect from the date of regularization of his juniors i.e. respondents 3 to 7 and to protect his seniority apart from such other incidental benefits, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner was working as U.D. Clerk in the Customs Department and he was shown over and above the unofficial respondents in the seniority list of U.D. Clerks. By order dated 5.7.1993, he was promoted as Preventive Officer and continued as such. While so, the second respondent promoted the unofficial respondents 5 and 6 who are junior to the petitioner as Preventive Officers, with effect from the date they assume charge. The respondents 3,4 and 7 also were given ad hoc promotions with effect from 9.8.1994. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted representation dated 31.8.1994 seeking to promote him as Preventive Officer and the second respondent by Memo dated 21.9.1994 responded that his case for regular promotion as Preventive Officer will be considered by the next D.P.C., even though the 7th respondent was regularized as Preventive Officer by order dated 21.12.1994, ignoring his claim. Further, ignoring the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Preventive Officer as claimed by his representations dated 21.6.1995 and 9.1.1995, the third and fourth respondents were promoted as Preventive Officer and he was informed that his case would be considered for regular promotion as Preventive Officer by the next D.P.C. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim of the petitioner, he filed O.A. No. 268 of 1998 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, to direct the official respondents to consider his case for promotion as Preventive Officer on regular basis and to protect his seniority over his juniors viz., respondents 3 to 7. As can be seen from the counter, the case of the official respondents before the Tribunal was that the Departmental Promotion Committee that met on 30.6.1994 and 28.9.1995 considered the case of the petitioner along with others and on both occasions, the petitioner did not come into the select panel. It is further their case that the case of the petitioner was considered by all the Departmental Promotion Committees that met in the year 1995, 1997 and 1998 and, as such, the contention of the petitioner that he was ignored is factually incorrect. It is also their case that the post of Preventive Officer, being a selection post, promotion cannot be claimed by virtue of seniority alone. The seniority in the feeder grade is the criteria for determining one’s eligibility to be included in the zone of consideration and the procedure does not envisage dividing the candidates included in such zone of consideration into year wise batch. It is specifically stated in the counter that the petitioner was promoted on ad hoc basis against a cost recovery post, which is purely temporary and not against a clear vacancy by the Departmental Promotion Committee, as claimed by him. The Tribunal by the order impugned herein dismissed the O.A. observing that the petitioner had not qualified for promotion in the selections made in the year 1994 and 1995 and has qualified only in the year 1998. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is arbitrariness in the selection of respondents 3 to 7 as Preventive Officers by the Departmental Promotion Committee, ignoring the genuine claim of the petitioner. As can be seen from the records and the order impugned herein, the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis. Though his case was considered by all the Departmental Promotion Committee in the selections made in the year 1994 and 1995 taking into account the confidential reports and the interview performance, he was not found fit for regularization. However, in the year 1998 the petitioner was found fit by the Departmental Promotion Committee and he was promoted as Preventive Officer on regular basis, taking into consideration his confidential reports and performance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as ordained by the Apex Court, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit as an appellate authority to assess the decision rendered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Having gone through the entire material available on record and the impugned order, we do not find any merit in the writ petition warranting interference by this court. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada August 17, 2010 MAS