THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 22280 of 2000 O r d e r: The petitioners, six in number, who have retired from service of the respondents-AP TRANSCO, have filed this writ petition assailing the action of the respondents in not promoting them to the post of UDC while they were in service, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to give notional promotion from the date of their entitlement and give them all consequential benefits and re-fix their pension. The petitioners joined the service of the respondents as Bill Collectors during the years 1959-64. The petitioners state that though were eligible for promotion to the post of UDC, they were deprived of promotion on the ground that they did not pass SSLC, despite the fact that the Government in their Memo dated 17.07.1963 had relaxed the condition of passing SSLC. The petitioners state that in the seniority list of UDCs. prepared by the respondents, they were shown at Sl. Nos. 460, 465, 464, 459, 463 and 478 respectively. It is the case of the petitioners that promotions to the post of UDC from the post of Bill Collectors are made in the ratio of 1:10. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though they were eligible for promotion, the respondents ignoring their claim, have promoted persons, who are much junior to them, which is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner state that one of the employees, in similar facts situation, filed writ petition in W.P. No. 15435 of 1990 assailing the action of the respondents in not promoting them to the post of UDC, and a learned Judge of this Court by order dated 15.03.1995, disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as qualified for consideration in the 1:10 quota for promotion to the post of UDC. The writ appeal in W.A. No. 561 of 1996, filed by the respondents assailing the order of the learned Judge of this Court, was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 17.03.1997. The S.L.P. (C) No. 20307 of 1997, preferred against the said judgment, was also dismissed by the Hon’Ble Supreme Court on 11.11.1997. Thereafter, the respondents in compliance of the judgments of this Court, issued proceedings dated 22.07.1998 notionally promoting the petitioner to the post of UDC from the date he became eligible for promotion. Hence the petitioners prayed for similar directions. The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents reiterating the averments made in the counter-affidavit submitted that Bill Collectors were re- designated as Revenue Collectors, and the services of Bill Collectors and LDCs were integrated to form one cadre w.e.f. 01.05.1982, and an integrated seniority list was prepared in each circle as existing on that date. The Revenue Collectors are entitled for promotion to the extent of 10% of the vacancies of UDCs, arising after 29.01.1988. The petitioners have not passed SSLC, and as such, they are not entitled to promotion, and more so when the respondents in their Memo dated 29.08.1990, has clarified that the suitability of Revenue Collector intergraded with LDC for promotion as UDC has to be considered based on the individual having minimum general educational qualification i.e. pass in SSLC. Therefore, they were not promoted. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-AP TRANSCO. The petitioners, who are Bill Collectors, re-designated as Revenue Collectors, admittedly did not pass SSLC. Vide B.P. Ms. No. 414, dated 03.05.1989, the respondents integrated Revenue Collectors and LDCs into one cadre. Pursuant to the integration, the respondents prepared a common seniority list. While integrating, the respondents ordered that 10% of the vacancies of UDCs will be reserved for Revenue Collectors, and the said reservation would be in regard to vacancies arising on or after 29.01.1988. Though the petitioners contend that despite their not passing SSLC they are entitled to be promoted to the post of UDC having regard to the Memo dated 17.07.1963, which relaxed the condition of passing SSLC, the fact remains, the respondents vide Memo dated 29.08.1990, have clarified that the suitability of Revenue Collector integrated with LDC for promotion as UDC would be considered based on the individual having minimum general qualification of SSLC, which the petitioners admittedly did not pass. The petitioners, admittedly, did not assail the Memo dated 29.08.1990, which clarified that promotion to the post of UDC has to be given based on the minimum general educational qualification of SSLC. In the absence of any challenge made by the petitioners to the Memo dated 29.08.1990, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents in not promoting them to the post of UDC on the ground that they did not pass SSLC. No doubt, this Court in similar facts situation, in the case of one of the employees, in W.P. No. 15435 of 1990, vide order dated 15.03.1995, has directed the respondents to promote the petitioner therein to the post of UDC under the 10% quota, and the writ appeal in W.A. No. 561 of 1996 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, and the S.L.P. preferred against the said judgment in S.L.P. (C) No. 20307 of 1997, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme court vide judgment dated 11.11.1997, and the respondents had even implemented the said order, but the fact remains, though this Court held that the petitioner cannot be denied promotion on the ground that he did not pass SSLC, it did not set aside the Memo dated 29.08.1990, issued by the respondents, which required that for promotion to the post of UDC, pass in SSLC is a pre-requisite. This apart, the direction, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion under the 10% quota came to be issued, for the reason that the petitioner therein had filed the writ petition while he was in service, and had retired during its pendency. But in the instant case, the petitioners did not challenge the action of the respondents in not promoting them while they were in service. If persons, junior to the petitioners were promoted, they ought to have assailed their promotions, which they did not do. If the petitioners were entitled to be promoted, they should have taken steps to file writ petition immediately after dismissal of the S.L.P. by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1997, which they did not do, and instead they filed the present writ petition in the year 2000, and that too after retiring from service, which certainly cannot be entertained, and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. In the result, the writ petition, both for lack of merit and laches, is liable to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 21st November, 2006. KSR