HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH W.P.No.627 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering his services as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist with effect from 02-07-1990 on par with his juniors Sri G.Ramanatham and Mrs.Shakuntala, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to consider his services as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist with effect from 02-07-1990 on par with his juniors. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to a requisition made by the 1st respondent-University to the District Employment Exchange calling for applications for 13 posts of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist in the year 1989, he applied for the said post, but his candidature was not considered on the pretext that he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Therefore, he filed O.A.No.906 of 1990 before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and obtained interim direction to permit him to attend interview for the said post. Pursuant to the said interim direction, he was allowed to participate in the interview for the said post and he was also empanelled for appointment. But, however, his case was not considered on the pretext that he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Therefore, he filed W.P.No.8942 of 1990 to declare the action of the 1st respondent herein in withholding his appointment, though he was selected by the 2nd respondent herein, as illegal and arbitrary. This court, by order, dated 30-07-1999, disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents therein to consider his case irrespective of the fact that he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Accordingly, he was appointed as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist vide order, dated 01- 11-1999 and posted in the Horticultural Research Station, Jaipur, Adilabad District, and he joined duty on 05-11-1999. It is further stated that some candidates, who were appointed in the year 1990, pursuant to the notification in the year 1989, are now expecting promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents to consider his services as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist with effect from the date of notification in the year 1989 on par with his juniors, as he lost ten years of service for no fault of him and he was appointed only in the year 1999. The 1st respondent vide his proceedings, dated 18-10-2000, rejected the representation of the petitioner informing him that his services cannot be treated on par with his juniors with effect from 02- 02-1990. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to be treated on par with his colleagues Sri G.Ramanatham and Mrs.Shakuntala. It is further stated that though one Sri Md.Rahamat Ali, who is a skilled labour, was appointed as Sub-Assistant on 07-08-1993, his services are being considered with effect from 12-08-1983. But, no fault of him, his appointment was delayed and the delay is attributable to the respondents only in not considering his candidature for the said post along with his colleagues on the ground that his name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Hence, the present writ petition. A counter has been filed stating that a notification was issued in the year 1989 calling for the list of candidates from the Employment Exchange. Pursuant to the interim order of the Tribunal, dated 11-01- 1990, the petitioner was interviewed, though he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, and results were also declared. The respondent University being an autonomous body governed by the Board of Management, does not come under the jurisdiction of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not binding. Though the petitioner was empanelled, his case was not considered for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist on the ground that he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8942 of 1990, which was disposed of by this court on 13- 07-1999 directing the respondents therein to consider his case irrespective of the fact that he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Accordingly, vide proceedings, dated 01-11-1999, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist and he reported duty on 05-11-1999. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that his seniority has to be counted from the date of notification on par with his juniors Sri G.Ramanatham and Mrs.Shakuntala is concerned, it is stated that the said candidates have been appointed in the year 1990 and they were reported duty on 30-06-1990 and 02-07- 1990 respectively and they have been working nine years prior to the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be said that they are juniors to the petitioner. As the petitioner was appointed in the year 1999, he became junior to Sri G.Ramanatham and Mrs.Shakuntala. Insofar as Md.Rahmat Ali’s case is concerned, it is stated that he was initially engaged as casual labour on 16-07-1976 and his seniority was counted only from 16-04-1982 on the ground that he was not available for work for a period exceeding six months from 01-10- 1981 to 15-04-1982 and, therefore, his seniority was reckoned from 16- 04-1982. Aggrieved thereby, the said Rahmat Ali filed W.P.No.6082 of 1988 before this court, which was allowed directing the respondents therein to treat him as casual labour with effect from 16-07-1976 ignoring the period of his absence on medical grounds. The case of Rahmat Ali is different from that of the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the case of the petitioner has to be treated on par with Rahmat Ali. Further, Rahmat Ali was working as a casual labour in the University prior to his appointment and his appointment to the post of Sub-Assistant was based on the seniority of casual labourers, whereas the petitioner was appointed only in the year 1999 as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist. As a matter of fact, in Rahmat Ali’s case, this court directed to reckon his seniority with effect from 16-07-1976. Therefore, it cannot be said the petitioner’s seniority has to be reckoned prior to the date of his actual appointment. In the instant case, the petitioner has not obtained any prior orders for recurring his seniority from the date of notification. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1999 and he has accepted the appointment order and joined duty on 05-11-1999 and he never questioned the appointment order with regard to treating his seniority from the date of his appointment or joining, as the case may be. The persons, who have joined nine years prior to the petitioner, cannot be treated as juniors to the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the seniority of the petitioner has to be counted from the date of his joining duty alone. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 21-10-2010 Prv