IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1903 of 2008 Between: N. Venkatesham S/o N. Anjaiah E. No. 290734, R/o 4-7-64, MIG-39, APSEB Colony, Prasanth Nagar, Sangareddy, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC., rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Director, APSRTC., (HYd. & KRMR Zone), MGBS., Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Manager, APSRTC.,Medak Region, Sangareddy, Medak District. 4 K. Govardhan Sangareddy, Medak District 5 S. Venkatesham S/o Not known to the petitioner Bus Depot, Sangareddy, Medak District. 6 N. Venkateshar S/o Not Known to the petitioner Zaheerabad. Medak Dsitrict. 7 J. sri Sailam S/o not Known to the petitioner Working in APSRTC Bus Depot, Sangareddy, Medak dsitrict. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an approprite Writ or direction particularly onein the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declarign the action of the respondents in not includingthe petitioner nameinthe provisionalinter-se-seniority list through proceedings No. E1/255(4)/07-H.Z dated 08-08-2007 not considering the petitioner objectionraised through representation dated 14-08-2007, and promoting the Junior i.e, respondents 4 to 7 by ignoring his case as arbitrary, unjust in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 ofthe Constitutionof India and consequently directthe respondents to consider the petitioner case for promoting him forthe post of Jr. Asst. on par with respondent No. 4 to 7 along with all consequential beneﬁts inthe interest of justice and fair paly. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1903 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Conductor initially in the BHEL Depot of Hyderabad City Region in the year 1991. His services were regularized with eﬀect from 01.08.1995. Thereafter, on his request, he was transferred to Medak Region, vide proceedings, dated 21.05.2001, on condition that he would forego the seniority and take the junior most place, in that region. Accordingly, he reported to duty, on transfer to Medak Region, on 13.07.2001. The post of Junior Assistant (Personnel) is zonal, in its purport. The Hyderabad zone comprises of Mahaboobnagar, Ranaga Reddy, Medak and Nalgonda Regions. The petitioner acquired the eligibility, by appearing in the examination conducted in the month of July 2007. His grievance is that though several of his juniors were given promotion, his case was not considered. The respondents ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit, stating that though the petitioner acquired the eligibility for being promoted, his case could not be considered, on account of the fact that there are several other seniors to him in the Medak Region. Subsequent to the ﬁling of the writ petition, the respondents passed an order, dated 29.02.2008, in pursuance of the interim direction issued by this Court in this very writ petition. The petitioner intends to challenge the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the appointment of the petitioner as Conductor was regularized on 01.08.1995 in the Hyderabad City Region. He has submitted an application with a prayer to transfer him to Medak Region. Accordingly, he was transferred to Medak Region vide proceedings, dated 21.05.2001, duly imposing a condition that he shall have to take a junior most position in the category of Conductor, in that region. Accordingly, he reported to duty on 13.07.2001. The Junior Assistant (Personnel) is a zonal post. The conductors and employees of other equivalent categories in the four regions forming part of the zone are eligible to apply. They have to pass the eligibility test also. Out of 1102 candidates, who applied for the post, in pursuance of a notiﬁcation issued by the respondents, about 100 candidates have qualiﬁed and the petitioner is one of them. The respondents do not dispute the eligibility of the petitioner in the context of minimum length of service of seven years, or the pass in the written test. They speciﬁcally plead, particularly in the order, dated 29.02.2008, that the case of the petitioner was not considered, on account of the fact that he is the junior most among the remaining passed candidates in the region. The particulars of respondents 4 to 7 are also furnished. Their dates of seniority in the Medak Region are 19.04.1994, 31.12.1997, 01.08.1998 and 01.01.2000 respectively. Though the petitioner was appointed way back in the year 1991, he had to take his seniority in the region with effect from the date of joining that place i.e., 13.07.2001, in terms of the order, dated 21.05.2001. The Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and others vs. Uttam Vishnu Pawar[1], does not apply to the facts of this case, since that was case, in which an attempt was made to reckon the seniority of an incumbent from the date of his joining the other station, in the context of extending the beneﬁt of stagnation. Further, the ratio laid down in the Judgment of this Court in M.Shanti vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited[2] has, in fact, been applied in the instant case. Though the petitioner joined the Medak Region on 13.07.2001, his service earlier to that was counted and he was treated as eligible. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no illegality can be said to have taken place. In fact, the respondents have stated that as and when the vacancies arise, the case of the petitioner would also be considered, on the basis of his seniority in the region. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 19.08.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1903 of 2008 Date: 19.08.2008 JSU [1] (2008) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 646 [2] 2008(4) ALT 564