IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 11326 of 1999 Between: G. Girija Monohar, S/o Ramakoteswara Rao, Dr. N.R.S. Govt. Ayurvedic College, Bandar Rd., Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. Administrative Tribunal Rep by Regitrar, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 Govt of A.P., Rep by Secretary Medical & Health, Hyderabad. 3 Director, Indian Medicine And Homeopathy, Behind Allwyn Show Room, MJ Road, Hyderabad. 4 M. Bamakrishna, Dr. Gururaju Govt. Homeopathic Medical College, Gudivada, Krishna Dist. 5 Sri P. Hariparasada Rao, Dr. Gururaju Govt. Homeopathic Medical College, Gudivada, Krishna Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records Dt:8-3-99 in R.P.No.300/89 on the file of A.P.A.T. and quash the same and further declare that G.O.M.s.No.293, Dt:17-6-88 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principals of Natural Justice and also violating of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per GM, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 08.03.1999 passed in R.P.No.300 of 1989 with M.A.No.1428 of 1997 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to declare G.O.Ms.No.293, dated 17.06.1988 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner was appointed as LDC-cum-Typist in the year 1971 on temporary basis and his services were regularized in the same cadre with effect from 30.11.1976 consequent on the selection by the District Selection Committee. He states that initially he was shown as senior to respondents 3 and 4, but thereafter, the third respondent issued a memo dated 10.11.1987 lowering his seniority to that of respondents 3 and 4. He submitted an objection for the same by making a representation dated 23.11.1987, but no orders have been passed thereon. While so, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.293, dated 17.06.1988 relaxing the General Rule 33(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules in favour of the fourth respondent so as to enable him to be appointed as Senior Assistant notionally with effect from 17.06.1978. Thereafter, his services were also regularized in the said cadre with effect from 17.06.1978. Challenging the said G.O., and the consequential proceedings, the petitioner filed R.P.No.300 of 1989 before the Tribunal, which in turn disposed of on 08.03.1999 directing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation claiming his seniority within a period of two weeks from that date. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the present writ petition. 3. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.505 dated 26.08.1981 absorbing the fourth respondent as Junior Assistant into Government Service with effect from 20.03.1972 and his services were regularized in the said cadre with effect from 20.03.1972 and thereafter, a provisional seniority list of Junior Assistants was communicated to all the individuals inviting their objections vide memo dated 10.11.1987. After due examination of the objections, a final seniority list was issued vide memo dated 31.03.1989. It is further stated that fifth respondent , who was junior to the petitioner and fully qualified, was promoted as Steward-cum-Supervisor with effect from 18.06.1979, while the petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant with effect from 14.09.1979. Thus, the petitioner is not senior to the fourth respondent even before issuance of orders by the Government giving notional promotion to him as Senior Assistant. Therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for promotion. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner was appointed in the year 1971, his services were regularized with effect from 30.11.1976, whereas the fourth respondent was appointed on 20.03.1972 and his services were regularized with effect from the said date. He further contended that as the petitioner joined the service in the year 1971, he claimed seniority against both the unofficial respondents. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that the services of fourth respondent were absorbed into the Government with effect from 20.03.1972 and his services were regularized as Junior Assistant from that date and therefore, he has been assigned a ranking over and above the petitioner and the 5th respondent. 6. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as LDC-cum-Typist in the year 1971 and his services were regularized on 30.11.1976. Further, as the services of the fourth respondent were absorbed into Government Service as Lower Division Clerk vide G.O.Ms.No.505 dated 26.08.1981 and he is fully qualified for promotion, he was appointed notionally in the cadre of Senior Assistant with effect from 17.06.1978 i.e., the date on which the fifth respondent, his junior was holding the post of Senior Assistant, vide G.O.Ms.No.293 dated 17.06.1988. That apart, the Tribunal while disposing of the O.A., directed the petitioner to make a detailed representation as regards his seniority to the respondents concerned within two weeks from that date, but without filing the same, he approached this Court. 8. Hence, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:17.03.2009 sj