IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3731 of 2000 Between: 1 K.Mariyanna, E. 69787, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda District. 2 B.Mallaiah, E. 85851,A.P.S.R.T.C., Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda District. 3 M.A.Azeem, E. 858632, Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Vice- Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda. 3 P.Krishnaiah, E. 85098, Leading Hand, Nalgonda Region, (A.P.S.R.T.C.), Nalgonda District. 4 M.D.Shareef E. 90332, MC, A.P.S.R.T.C., Barkatpura Depot, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. .....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 a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or directions directing the 2nd respondent to promote the petitioners as Leading hand when their Juniors were promoted to the said post of Leading Hand with all consequential and attendant benefits including arrears of pay and pass such other orders or order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners, who were working as Mechanics Grade-II in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, seeks directions by way of Mandamus to respondent No.2, to promote them as Leading Hand on par with respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. It is their case that though they are working as Mechanics along with respondent Nos. 3 and 4, but, by excluding them, only respondent Nos.3 and 4 were promoted to the post of Leading Hand. 3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Corporation. While generally denying the allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated in the counter affidavit that as per the Service Regulations of the Corporation, the vacancies of Leading Hand are filled from different slots in a unit of 12 vacancies, as under : a) The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 9th and 12th vacancy shall be filled by promotion by selection from the ranks of Mechanics Grade-I or otherwise from the ranks of Mechanics Grade-II. b) The 5th, 8th and 11th vacancy shall be filled by promotion by selection from the ranks of other Artisans (other than Mechanics). c) The 6th and 10th vacancy shall be filled by promotion by selection of Mechanic Grade-I or Grade-II who are directly recruited as such from ITI candidates. d) The 2nd vacancy be filled by promotion by selection of other Artisans Grade-I or Grade-II (other than Mechanics) who are directly recruited as such from ITI candidates. 4. For the purpose of promotion, it is stated that the petitioners fall under slot (a) i.e. for consideration against the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 9th and 12th vacancies of Leading Hand. It is stated that respondent No.3, though junior to the petitioners, was promoted under slot (c), which is exclusively meant for promotion by selection of Mechanics Grade-I or Grade-II, who are directly selected as such from ITI candidates. So far as respondent No.4 is concerned, he was promoted as a Vehicle Inspector, vide Office Order No.P2/232(1)/81-YGT, dated 05.11.1981. 5. It is contended by Sri P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for petitioners that there is no channel of promotion for promoting respondent No.4 to the post of Vehicle Inspector, but the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation, has placed before the Court, a copy of the office order bearing No.P2/232(1)/81-YGT, dated 05.11.1981, whereby respondent No.4 was promoted to the post of Vehicle Inspector. 6. So far as this writ petition is concerned, on the premise that respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are juniors to them, are promoted, the petitioners are seeking directions for their promotion to the post of Leading Hand. When the name of respondent No.3 is considered in a different slot for which the petitioners are not eligible for promotion, it cannot be said that excluding the claims of petitioners, respondent No.3 is promoted illegally. So far as respondent No.4 is concerned, he is not promoted as a Leading Hand, but was promoted as a Vehicle Inspector by a separate order dated 05.11.1981. The validity of the said order cannot be gone into in the present writ petition, as the limited relief sought for in this writ petition is to grant directions for promoting the petitioners on par with respondent Nos.3 and 4. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to grant the relief sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th February 2009. ajr