IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 26676 of 2008 Between: 1 S.S.R. Murthy, E-450067, S/o. Late Ramulu, Anakapalli Depot, R/o. Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. 2 B.L. Rao, E-450979, S/o. Late Kasinaidu, Anakapalli Depot, R/o. Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Ch. V.A.S. Naidu E-455838, S/o. Ramanaidu, Anakapalli Depot, R/o. Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. 4 R.R. Rao, E-453871, S/o. Ganga Naidu, Anakapalli Depot, R/o. Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Visakhapatnam. 3 The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Visakhapatnam Rural Division, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Anakapally, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the in fixing the duty charts without following the Seniority and denying chart duties to the senior employees like the petitioners in the Depot as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice, and consequently direct the respondents herein to follow the duty charts prepared earlier. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.S.ACHI BABU Counsel for the Respondents: K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.26676 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, in fixing the duty charts without following the seniority in the Depot, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners, who are working as Conductors in the respondent Corporation in Anakapalli Depot claim that they are senior employees in the Depot, and assert that in the usual course, the fixing of the duty charts is based on the divisional seniority and the same is still in practice even today. It is their further case that the APSRTC Visakhapatnam Region has two Divisions – one for Urban and the other for Rural operations viz., Visakhapatnam Urban Division and Visakhapatnam Rural Division, and that though the staff of the Region work in both the Divisions, the staff of the Urban Division get their position as seniors on par with the staff of the Rural Division in a Depot. The petitioners submit that there are two varieties of duty charts in Rural Division viz., Express charts for seniors and passenger charts for juniors. However, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the 4th respondent, namely, the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Anakapally, has proposed to fill up the charts considering only the Rural Division seniority, and thereby the petitioners, who in fact, are seniors, are being pushed down to work in passenger charts, which is unjust and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Whether in the matter of filling up of the charts, the Urban Division seniority or Rural Division seniority should be considered or whether seniors should be given the express charts/passenger charts should be filled up by seniors/juniors or vice-versa, are matters exclusively within the domain of the administrative authorities, who prepare the charts basing on the requirements of the charts and following the guidelines/rules/regulations, governing the preparation of the charts, and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not decide as to whether the seniors/juniors should be given express charts/passenger charts or vice-versa. If the petitioners have any grievance with regard to filling up or preparation of the duty charts by the administrative authorities, their remedy is to bring the same to the notice of the authority concerned by making appropriate representation or move the higher authorities in the hierarchy, but certainly they cannot maintain the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioners to make appropriate representation to the authority concerned or move the higher authorities in the hierarchy bringing to their notice their grievance with regard to preparation of the charts. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 08.12.2008 v v