HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.16220 of 2011 ORDER: 1. Seeking to declare the action of the respondent in not considering the cases of the petitioners for appointment as Assistant Engineers by transfer on par with their juniors, who were appointed as Assistant Engineers vide Memo No.CMD/CGM (HRD)/GM/(S)AS (Estt)/PO-A/194-A3/10, dated 16-6-2010 with all consequential benefits including seniority, scale of pay and with arrears of pay as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows: The 1st respondent issued a notification dated 16-11-2001 inviting applications for the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) on contract basis. The petitioners submitted their applications and they were selected and appointed as Sub-Engineers vide proceedings dated 1-5-2002. Subsequently, their services were regularized with effect from 1-12-2004. As per APSE Board Service Regulations issued in BPMs.No.354, dated 12-12-1994, graduate Sub-Engineers with a minimum of four years of service are entitled to be appointed as Assistant Engineers by transfer to the extent of 10% of the vacancies at the time of each recruitment. As per the said regulation, the petitioners are eligible for appointment as Assistant Engineers. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Karimnagar vide proceedings dated 26-6- 2010 declared the probation of the petitioners as completed satisfactorily. Subsequently, the petitioners made representations to consider their promotions. The grievance of the petitioners is that some of the persons, who are junior to the petitioners, were appointed as Assistant Engineers. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that by virtue of proceedings dated 26-6-2010, probation of the petitioners has been completed satisfactorily by 30-11-2006 and without considering the case of the petitioners for promotion, their juniors were given promotion and therefore, he prays to give a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners on par with their juniors. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the question as to whether the petitioners are qualified and eligible for promotion or not has to be decided by the respondent in accordance with the rules governing the service conditions of the petitioners. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, appropriate decision has to be taken by the respondent in accordance with the Rules because by virtue of proceedings dated 26-6-2010, probation of petitioners for a total period of two years on duty within the continuous period of three years was declared to have been satisfactorily completed by 30- 11-2006. If the petitioners are otherwise eligible, there is no impediment for giving promotion to them. For that purpose, the respondent has to take decision whether the petitioners are eligible for promotion especially when their juniors have been promoted. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to take appropriate decision with regard to eligibility of the petitioners for effecting promotions by transfer in accordance with the Rules governing service conditions of petitioners and duly taking note of the promotions effected to their juniors subject to availability of vacancies, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _____________ K.C.BHANU,J Dt: 24.06.2011 kdl