IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 3705 of 2009 Between: 1 B. Prabhakar, S/o. Narsaiah, O/o. Executive Engineer, Division No. IV, FFC-II, Jangaon, Warangal District. 2 Md. Azeemuddin, S/o. Md. Ameenuddin, O/o. Executive Engineer, Division No. III, Construction Circle, K.C. Colony, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Govt, I& CAD (A1) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Engineer-in-Chief, (Administration Wing) I & CAD Dept., Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle Nirmal, Adilabad District. 4 M. Raja Mogili, Asst. Executive Engineer, O/o. Executive Engineer, PP Rao Division, Old Forest Complex, Bellampally, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal passed in OA No. 4053 of 2002 dated 30-9-2008 as arbitrary and illegal. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for Respondent No.4:MR. T. BAPUJI RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: (per GM, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 30.09.2008 passed in O.A.No.4053 of 2002 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The petitioners were initially appointed as Draughtsmen Grade-III in Construction Circle, and thereafter, they were promoted as Draughtsmen Grade-I and are working as such. They state that Draughtsmen Grade-II and III are eligible for appointment by transfer as Assistant Executive Engineers as per G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 04.02.1991 and thereafter, the Government amended the Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 19.12.2005, which came into force with effect from 04.02.1991 i.e., the date on which the Executive Instructions were issued in G.O.Ms.No.22. The fourth respondent, who was working as Draughtsman Grade-II in Irrigation Circle, was appointed by transfer as Assistant Executive Engineer vide proceedings dated 21.12.1994 in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 04.02.1991 and has taken the special promotion post scale-I after completion of 8 years of service. He filed a representation dated 20.04.2000 seeking reversion as Draughtsman Grade-II and for notional promotion as Draughtsman Grade-I and also filed O.A.No.4053 of 2002 before the Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case for notional promotion as Draughtsman Grade-I with effect from 28.04.1995 on par with his immediate junior Sri T.Ananda Rao with all consequential benefits by setting aside the memo dated 8.11.2004 issued by the first respondent therein. During the pendency of the said O.A., representation dated 20.04.2000 of the fourth respondent was rejected vide memo dated 06.11.2004. However, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. as prayed for. The petitioners state that now they are due for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in the quota earmarked for them and that because of the order of the Tribunal passed in O.A.No.4053 of 2002 in favour of the fourth respondent, their promotions will be adversely affected. Hence, they filed the present writ petition. 3. On 25.02.2009, while issuing notice before admission, this Court granted interim suspension of the order passed by the Tribunal in the O.A. 4. The fourth respondent filed a counter-affidavit inter alia stating that the petitioners are belonging to Construction Circle, Hanumakonda, Warangal District and he belongs to Irrigation Circle, Nirmal, Adilabad District and that his seniority in the cadre of Draughtsman Grade-II is in existence with the Irrigation Circle, but not the Construction Circle. He states that as the seniority of Draughtsmen Grades-I to III are being maintained by each Circle, there is no common seniority. Therefore, the petitioners have no locus standi to question his existence in Nirmal Circle and for impleading him in this writ petition. He further states that he had completed the prescribed period of probation as Draughtsman Grade-II and therefore, his name shall be continued in the seniority list of Draughtsman Grade-II till his retirement even though he has been transferred as Assistant Executive Engineer, which comes under Andhra Pradesh Engineering State Services. He also states that the promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer from the category of Draughtsman Grade-II is subject to the condition that the employee has to complete two years of field services out of total 10 years of service as Draughtsman Grade-II and therefore, the petitioners are not eligible for promotion. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as the fourth respondent was appointed by transfer as Assistant Executive Engineer and his services were regularized in the said cadre and worked beyond the prescribed period of probation, his reversion for the post of Draughtsman Grade-II is not proper. He further contended that the name of the fourth respondent was deemed to have been removed from the list of candidates for promotion to the post of Draughtsman Grade-I as per Rule 4(b) of Old General Rules for Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules (for short ‘the Rules’) and that the Tribunal ought to have considered the amendments made in G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 19.12.2005. 6. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent vehemently contended that even though the fourth respondent has been transferred and posted as Assistant Executive Engineer, his lien in the category of Draughtsman Grade-II is still continuing and when his name is not removed from the seniority list, he is entitled to reversion in the cadre of Draughtsman Grade-II. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in C.A.No.823 of 2004 in O.A.No.4053 of 2002 and submitted that as the fourth respondent gave option for appointment by transfer as Assistant Executive Engineer and his services were regularized with effect from 31.12.1994, his name was deemed to have been removed from the list of candidates for promotion to other channel post of Draughtsman Grade-I as per Rule 4(b) of the Rules. He further submitted that the fourth respondent has completed 10 years of service, as Assistant Executive Engineer and therefore, his claim for notional promotion to the post of Draughtsman Grade-I after a long period cannot be considered. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. 9. Admittedly, the fourth respondent, who was working as Draughtsman Grade-II, was appointed by transfer as Assistant Executive Engineer vide proceedings dated 21.12.1994, in pursuance of the Executive Instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 04.02.1991, which was issued subject to amendment of Special Rules of Andhra Pradesh Engineering Services. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 19.12.2005 amending the Rules of ‘method of recruitment’ in the category 6 for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer with reference to the combined seniority based on the date of appointment as Draughtsman Grade-III. Further, as the fourth respondent has opted for his transfer as Assistant Executive Engineer, his name was deemed to have been removed from the list of candidates for promotion to other channel post Draughtsman Grade-I as per Rule 4(b) of the Rules. The fourth respondent has already completed 10 years of service as Assistant Executive Engineer. In view of the said fact, we are of the opinion that his reversion as directed by the Tribunal in the O.A., at this length of time, will adversely affect the promotional chances of the petitioners. Therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in allowing the O.A. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order impugned. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:20.03.2009 sj