IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6811 of 2009 Between: 1 N. Srinvias S/o. Krishna Murthy District Stores, Khammam R/o. Khammam 2 Y.V. Anand Kumar S/o. Y. Nagabhushanam Construction, Bhadrachalam R/o. Bhadrachalam 3 N. Balaji S/o. Sreedhar Babu R/o. Khammam Khammam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Northern Powr Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Rep. by its Chief General Manager, H.R.D., Hanmakonda, Warangal. 2 K. Srinivas Reddy S/o.K . Thirupathi Reddy Warangal, R/o. Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 3 K. Upendar S/o. Bixamaiah, Warangal 4 B. Danaiah S/o. Ramaswamy, Warangal R/o. Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 5 M. Kishore Kumar S/o. Madhava Rao, Karimnagar. 6 E. Satyanarayana S/o Janardhan,Karimnagar. R/o. Karimnagar 7 Ch. Raja Brahmachary S?o. Chandramouli, Karimnagar R/o. Karimnagar 8 D. Naga Raju S/o. Buchaiah, Warangal, R/o. Warangal. 9 Y. Ramesh Kumar S/o. Subbas Chandra bose Khammam, R/o.Khammam 10 P. Srinvias S/o. Ramaswamy, Warangal, R/o. Warangal 11 S. Naga Brahma Chary S/o. Kotaiah Chary, Khammam, R/o.Khammam 12 P. Srinvias S/o. Malllaiah, Adilabad R/o. Bellampally, Adilabad District. 13 V. Satish Kumar, S/o. Somaiah, R/o. Nizamabad. Nizamabad District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI B.SASIBHUSHAN RAO Counsel for respondent No.1: SRI P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) Counsel for respondents 2 to 13: None appears The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in giving relaxation to respondents 2 to 13 vide his proceedings N.O.O.(CGM-HRD) Ms.No.23, dated 21-04-2004 and N.O.O. (CGM-HRD) Ms.No.31 dated 29-04-2004 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri B.Sasibhushan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Engineers in the year 2003. Respondents 2 to 13, who were working as Sub-Engineers were appointed by transfer as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) by the impugned proceedings. The petitioners claimed, in their affidavit, that the information furnished to them by respondent No.1 showed that relaxation was given to 13 members of Graduate Sub-Engineers, who were appointed by transfer as Assistant Engineers in the year 2004. The petitioners, therefore, filed this writ petition on the apprehension that giving relaxation to respondents 2 to 13 may affect their seniority. Proceedings in N.O.O.(CGM-HRD) Ms.No.23 dated 21-04-2004, by which respondents 2 to 13 were appointed by transfer as Assistant Engineers (Electrical), contain several conditions subject to which such appointment was made. Condition (b) reads as under- “They have to take the lowest rank below the Junior- most Assistant Engineer (Trainee) who have already been appointed as trainee Assistant Engineers as of the date of this N.O.O.” At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, to the query of the Court, submitted that respondent No.1 has not passed any order deleting, amending or in any way modifying the above mentioned condition. So long as the condition reproduced above remains in force, the seniority of the petitioners will not be affected. While the petitioners have not indicated the nature of “relaxation” granted in favour of respondents 2 to 13, at any rate, whatever may be the relaxation granted in favour of respondents 2 to 13, the same will not affect the interests of the petitioners in respect of their seniority qua respondents 2 to 13, so long as the above mentioned condition is not touched by respondent No.1. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this writ petition, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.8907 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 1st April, 2009 vrn