IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 14749 of 2005 Between: R.P.Rama Rao, S/o.R.V.Narasimha Rao, Rayalaseema Grameena Bank, Porumamilla Branch, Porumamilla, Kadapa district. ..... PETITIONER AND Rayalaseema Grameena Bank, Rep by its Chairman, Head Office, Kadapa, Kadapa district. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent bank in not placing the petitioner in the seniority list of Clerk-cum-Cashier as per Clause (iii)(a) of Regulation No.13 of rayalaseema Grameena Bank ( Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2001 while giving promotion to the cadre of officer,Scale-I as illegal, unjust arbitrary and against service rules and also the Regulations and consequently direct the respondent bank to prepare and place the petitioner in the seniority list Clerk-cum- Cashier as per the regulations while giving promotions to the cadre of Officer, Scale-I and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the respondent is right in preparing a seniority list without giving details as to the dates of appointment of Clerk-cum- Cashiers in Rayalaseema Grameena Bank, which is merged with Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank. It appears, petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier in Rayalaseema Grameena Bank with effect from 29.8.1977 and as per the Award dated 30.4.1990 passed by the National Industrial Tribunal, the posts of Junior Clerk-cum-Cashier and Senior Clerk- cum-Cashier were merged and renamed as Clerk-cum-Cashier. Further, in the year 1991, the National Agricultural Bank for Rural Development (NABARD) has issued a circular asking the Grameena Banks to prepare a seniority list in various cadres by issuing certain guidelines. In the year 2001, regulations have been framed called as Rayalaseema Grameena Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2001 (for short “the Regulations”). It appears, respondent has prepared various seniority lists in the cadre of Clerk- cum-Cashiers upto 2005. In the seniority list of Junior Clerk-cum- Cashier prepared on 24.9.1990 of Grameena Bank, petitioner was shown at Serial No.1, whereas in the seniority list furnished by the respondents on 29.3.2005, his name was shown at Serial No.110. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, there is no proper seniority prepared in the cadre of Clerk-cum-Cashiers in the Bank as required under 2001 Regulations. In the seniority list prepared by the respondent, no where the dates of appointments were shown to find out as to who joined at which point of time, therefore, proper rankings of Clerk-cum-Cashiers could not be verified. According to the learned counsel, petitioner is entitled to reckon his seniority as per Regulation 13(iii)(a) of Regulation. Whereas it is the contention of the learned counsel for respondents that Regulation 13(iii)(a) is applicable to officers in promoted category. Since the petitioner was from the same cadre to which he was appointed initially, his seniority is reckoned as per Regulation 13(v) of the Regulations. A perusal of the approved seniority list produced by the respondents would indicate that the details as to the dates of appointment, regularization or promotions if any made, are all missing. The basis for preparing such a seniority list is not known, except stating that the same was prepared as per Regulation 13(v) of Regulations. Generaglly speaking, the seniority list is supposed to contain the dates of appointment in the initial posts as well as the posts to which the candidates were promoted subsequently, but such details are not available in the present seniority list. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the seniority list is not prepared as per rules is not far from truth and the same is not in accordance with regulations. Under those circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the respondent is directed to prepare a tentative seniority list showing the dates of initial appointment and dates of promotion, if any made as per the rankings obtained by them in the direct recruitment, and call for objections from all the concerned employees and finalise the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till such time, no regular promotions shall be effected in the cadre of Clerk-cum-Cashier to higher posts. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 22.2.2008 DA