THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.7080 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the final seniority list prepared by the third respondent- Municipality vide proceedings dated 03.02.2009 and the order dated 19.01.2010 passed in O.A.No.3205 of 2009 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows; The petitioner was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher, along with seven others vide proceedings, dated 02.07.1984, wherein his name was placed at Sl.No.3 and the name of the 4th respondent at Sl.No.8. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as School Assistant on 07.11.1987 and his name was placed at Sl.No.7, whereas the name of the 4th respondent at Sl.No.9. While so, the third respondent had prepared the provisional seniority list on 29.07.2004 in the cadre of School Assistants and that the name of the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.8, whereas the name of the 4th respondent at Sl.No.7 and that the said list was confirmed vide proceedings, dated 23.08.2004, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A.No.10535 of 2008 before the Tribunal, which in turn passed an interim order directing the third respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Master. The petitioner states that though he made representation on 18.12.2008 to the third respondent, but in vain. The petitioner further states that while the said O.A. is pending, the third respondent issued another seniority list vide proceedings, dated 03.02.2009, which was also challenged by him by filing O.A.No.3205 of 2009 before the Tribunal, which in turn dismissed the same vide order dated 19.01.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for respondents 1 and 2, Sri S. Nageswara Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri M. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the third respondent admitted in his counter that according to the rules, the order of merit or order of preference indicated in a list of selected candidates shall not be disturbed for counting the seniority and that as per the availability of feeder cadre panel position, the seniority list has to be revised, and therefore, as the name of the petitioner was over and above the 4th respondent in the initial appointment order dated 02.07.1984, which was prepared based on the marks secured by the candidates, and in their promotion order also, the name of the petitioner was placed over and above the 4th respondent, the petitioner’s case may be considered for placement of his name above the 4th respondent in the final seniority list dated 03.02.2009. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration contended that as the petitioner had not questioned the seniority lists prepared for the years 1998, 2002 and 2004, his claim to revise the seniority list, dated 03.02.2009, at this belated stage cannot be entertained and that the Tribunal following the judgment of the Apex Court in B.S.BAJWA v. STATE OF PUNJAB[1] dismissed O.A.No.3205 of 2009 vide its order dated 19.01.2010 and therefore, there is no need to interfere with by this Court. 6. We have perused the order impugned, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the first seniority list was prepared on 01.08.1998, the second seniority list on 26.04.2002 and the third seniority list on 23.08.2004 and in all those lists, the name of the 4th respondent was placed over and above the name of the petitioner and two others. Thereafter, the third respondent had prepared another seniority list vide proceedings dated 03.02.2009. The Tribunal held that there was inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in agitating the matter regarding the seniority. Further, in the decision cited 1 supra, the Apex Court held as under: “It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position, which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and to reject the writ petition”. From the above extracted judgment, it is clear that in service matters, the matter of reopening the seniority list after the lapse of a reasonable period is not justifiable. In the light of the same, the Tribunal rightly dismissed O.A.No.3205 of 2009 vide order impugned. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:20.04.2010. sj [1] (1998) 2 SCC 523