IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4914 of 2006 Between: 1 Rafiuddin Khan S/o Hussain Khan, O/o The Area Manager, Telecom Rural, Hyderabad Telecom District, Hyderabad 2 Mohammad Fakruddin S/o Mohammed Shafiuddin, O/o General Manager, Telecom Projects, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad 3 Mohammed Ezaz Ahmed S/o Essa O/o Area Manager, Rural HTD, Hyderabad 4 V.V. Satish Kumar S/o S.V. Rami Reddy O/.o The General Manager, Telecom, Cellone, CTD Compound, Secudnerabad. 5 Murtuza Shareef, S/o Ahmed Shareef O/o The Principal General Manager, Kavadiguda, Telecom District, Suryalok Complex, Hyderabad ... PETITIONERS and The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. ...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 issue a Writ/Order more particularly in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to consider to provide walk-in- group or avenues of promotions to the posts of JE (Civil) by way of absorption to the cadre basing on seniority-cum-Suitability as was done in the case of Draughtsman Electrical who were considered for promotion to J.E. (Electrical) and declare the inaction of the Respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners as arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, misconceived and in violation Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners to promote them to the cadre of JE (Civil) with all consequential benefits and be pleased to pass such other orders as are necessary in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners :DR.A.RAGHU KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.(SC FOR B.S.N.L) The Court made the following: O R D E R: The petitioners joined the Telecom Department of Government of India, in or about 1980, as Draftsman (Civil). Subsequently, the Department came to reorganized as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). The next superior post to that of Draftsman (Civil) was Junior Engineer (Civil). In the year 1992, the Department framed regulations, providing for promotional avenues to Draftsman (Civil), to the extent of 16.66%, on the basis of performance in a limited departmental competitive examination. It is stated that till the year 2001, when the BSNL came into existence, only one examination was conducted. After the BSNL came into existence, revised rules were framed, redesignating Junior Engineer (Civil) as Junior Technical Officer (Civil), providing reservation of 20%, for internal candidates. Petitioners contend that even after the constitution of BSNL, no competitive examination was held for selection of candidates, against 20% of vacancies of Junior Technical Officer (Civil), and faced with similar situation, the BSNL had brought into existence, what is known as walk-in-group, providing for promotion of Draftsman of other categories to the respective supervisory posts, without conducting the competitive examination. The petitioners seek similar relief, vis-à-vis the post of Junior Technical Officer (Civil). The respondent filed a counter affidavit, stating inter alia that the necessity to adopt the Walk-in-group in other divisions and disciplines had arisen, on account of acute demand, and in view of recent changes, the importance of Civil Engineering has been substantially reduced. It is stated that steps are being taken to conduct examination, and the petitioners cannot compel the respondent to deviate from the prescribed procedure. Heard Sri A. Raghu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri R.S. Murthy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondent. It is not in dispute that be it the Department of Telecommunications, or the BSNL, have provided for promotional avenues from the post of Draftsman (Civil), up to stipulated percentages, on the basis of performance in the limited departmental competitive examination. The only difference is that while under the former, the percentage earmarked for this category was 16.66, under the latter, it is 20. Holding of a competitive examination for promotions, or for that matter, affecting promotions themselves, would depend upon the exigency of concerned department. Mere existence of vacancies cannot be treated as a factor, to compel the department to affect promotions. Further, the fact that a different procedure was adopted, vis-à-vis other disciplines, to meet the exigency of service, cannot be treated as a factor to compel the respondent, to deviate from the prescribed procedure. At any rate, the grievance of the petitioners stood substantially redressed, with the issuance of a notification by the respondent on 20.2.2008, initiating the process for selection of candidates, by conducting limited departmental competitive examination. Further, to mitigate the hardship caused to the petitioners, relaxation of age, etc, are also extended. Under these circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ 9th April 2008 PAN