HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21933 of 2009 Dated: 03-06-2010 Between: K.C.Venkateswarlu & another. … Petitioners And A.P.GENCO, rep. by its Managing Director, Vidyutsoudha, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21933 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners are the Light Vehicle Drivers working in A.P.GENCO. In this writ petition, it is their grievance that the official respondents are taking steps to promote respondents 4 and 5 as Heavy Vehicle Drivers, pursuant to the Departmental Promotion Committee Meeting held on 24th of August 2009, though they are not qualified. Even before the recommendations are made for promoting respondents 4 and 5 and promotions are given to them, this writ petition is filed merely on apprehension. The official respondents have filed counter affidavit. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the qualifications required for the post of Heavy Vehicle Driver, are as under : “Pass in 5th standard with 6 years practical experience in lorry driving and possession of driving license for heavy or light transport vehicles without Police or Magisterial endorsement”. Further, the seniority list of Light Vehicle Drivers as on 01.06.2009 was also given in the counter affidavit, as per which, the petitioners stand at Serial Nos.5 and 6, whereas, respondents 4 and 5 stand at Serial Nos.1 and 2. Further, a categorical statement is made in the counter affidavit that respondents 4 and 5 are qualified for promotion to the post of Heavy Vehicle Driver and that the allegation made by the petitioners is false. When the matter is taken up, no other material is placed before this Court, showing that the prescribed qualifications as mentioned in the counter affidavit, are not correct. In that view of the matter, the allegation of petitioners that respondents 4 and 5 are not qualified and inspite of the same, the official respondents are taking steps to give promotions to them, is baseless and false. Further, it is to be noticed that respondents 4 and 5 are shown as seniors to the petitioners in the seniority list. In any event, even before recommendations are made and orders are issued promoting respondents 4 and 5, there is no basis for filing this writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground for grant of directions as prayed for. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd June 2010 ajr