IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 789 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/03/2009 in WP NO : 19374 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M.Nageshwar Rao S/o.Venkateswara Rao (Operation) Ongole Circle APSPDCL Tirupathi Chittoor District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Chairman & Managing Director, APCPDCL Singarani Bhavan Lakdikapool,Hyderabad 2 The Chief General Manager, APCPDCL Singarani Bhavan Hyderabad 3 The Chairman & Marketing Director, APSPDCL Raingunta Road Tirupathi,Chittoor District 4 The Chairman & Managing Director, AP Transco Vidyuth Soudha,Khairabad,Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.NARSIMLOO Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the order, dated 26.03.2009 made in WV MP No.562 of 2008 in WP MP No. 25273 of 2008 in W.P. No. 19374 of 2008 by a learned Single Judge of this court vacating the interim order dated 6.9.2008 whereby the appellant herein was directed to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer in APCPDCL, as per his seniority, the writ petitioner preferred this appeal. The case of the appellant herein is that he was originally appointed as Assistant Engineer in the year 1994 in the erstwhile Electricity Board and on his option, in the year 2002 he was allotted to APCPDCL and under revised option, the appellant opted for APSPDCL, Tirupathi. The appellant filed WP No. 16653 of 2002 wherein this court directed the respondents to continue the petitioner at the same place. Subsequently, by order dated 30.11.2004, the above writ petition was dismissed, aggrieved thereby the appellant filed Writ Appeal No. 2034 of 2004 and this court by order dated 28.2.2005 directed that the services of the those petitioners with their respective present employees would be treated until further orders as service on deputation and the same will be subject to the result of the Writ appeals. While so, though other petitioners were promoted to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer, based on the seniority within the working Discom, the appellant was not promoted to the next higher post and, therefore, he filed W.P. No. 7108 of 2008 seeking promotion to the post of Divisional Engineer wherein by order dated 9.4.2007, this court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, if any of his juniors have been already been considered for promotion. It is further stated that since the appellant was not promoted, he filed Contempt Case No.712 of 29007. Subsequently, on representation, the C.M.D, APCPDCL has rejected the request of the appellant saying that his request for promotion will be considered only on repatriation to APCPDCL. Thereafter, the appellant filed another W.P. No.19374 of 2008 for promotion to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer pending disposal of W.A. No. 2034 of 2004 and this court by order dated 6.9.2008 has directed the respondents to consider case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer in APCPDCL, Hyderabad, if his turn, as per his seniority, subject, however, to the result of the Writ Appeal No. 2034 of 2004. Seeking to vacate this order dated 6.9.2008 the respondents herein have filed WVMP No. 562 of 2008 and the impugned order case to be passed. The case of the respondents herein before the learned Single Judge was that after allotment of the employees to different distribution companies, combined seniority cannot be maintained and therefore, the appellant’ case cannot be considered for promotion as Assistant Divisional Engineer in APCPDCL. It is further observed by the learned Single Judge the appellant’s request for repatriation to APCPDCL in view of expiry of five years period is not acceded to by the APSPDCL in view of the subsistence of the interim order and that the appellant was considered and was informed that his seniority and promotion cannot be considered so long as he continues to work on deputation in APSPDCL where his seniority is not maintained. We have gone through the impugned order dated 26.03.2009 and perused the material available on record. Having regard to the fact the relief claimed by the appellant in W.P. No. 7108 of 2007 and W.A. No. 2034 of 2004 are pending adjudication before this Court and as observed by the learned Single Judge, no purpose would be served by directing the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for promotion, pending the above writ petition and Writ Appeal, we do not propose to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar June 16, 2009 MAS