IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 22582 of 2000 Between: M.A. Rasheed, E.49821, S/o. M.A. Khader, R/o. Hyd, Hyderabad District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep by its Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyd. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad City Region, Jubilee Bus Station, Picket, Secunderabad. 3 Sri M.A. Baig, E.54117, ADC., APSRTC, Rajendranagar Depot, R.R.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 may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the Nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents not reckoning the seniority of the petitioner from 28-3-74 and canceling the promotion the same by proceedings No.C2/750(1)/98-HCR dt.16-2-99 as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the Regulation-3 of service Regulations of APSRTC.,1964 and also contrary to the law and consequently direct the respondents to reckoned the seniority of the petitioner from 28-3-74 and grant the consequential beneﬁts flowing from seniority. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.A.K.MYNUDDIN Counsel for the Respondents: (SC FOR A.P.S.R.T.C.) The Court made the following: Order: The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not giving him the beneﬁt of seniority in the post of Grade-I Conductor from 28-03-1974 as arbitrary and illegal and questions the proceedings dated 16- 02-1999 issued in Rc.No.C2/750 (1)/98-HCR, by the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager of the Hyderabad City Region of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Grade-I Conductor on 28-03-1974 at Nandyal Depot. The Unit of appointment, seniority etc., for the post of Conductors, was divisional at one point of time and it was subsequently made regional, i.e. every region is declared as Unit. The petitioner, while working as Grade-II Conductor in Nandyal division, was transferred to Hyderabad division on his request, by order dated 17-11-1978. Pursuant thereto, he joined in Mehdipatnam depot of city sub-area (city division). The said order transferring the petitioner was a conditional one, wherein it is stated that he shall be given the beneﬁt of seniority in the category of Conductors from the date of his joining duty at the present place. After the petitioner worked in Hyderabad city division for considerable number of years, he was promoted as Grade-I Conductor by oﬃce order dated 05-08-1988 and a further order dated 10-11-1988 is said to be issued to the same effect. The impugned order dated 16-02-1999 is passed, by which the promotion issued to the petitioner in the order dated 05-08-1988, promoting him as Grade-I Conductor is cancelled and the promotion was ordered to be given eﬀect to with reference to the order dated 10-11-1988. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus for giving him the beneﬁt of seniority in the cadre of Grade-I Conductor from 28-03-1974, i.e. from the date of his initial appointment in Nandyal Depot and also questioned the order dated 16-02-1999. 4. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner was transferred on his own request by order dated 17-11-1978 subject to the condition that he will be given the beneﬁt of seniority, in the category of conductors, from the date he joins duty in the division to which he is transferred. It is stated that it is not open to the petitioner to question the said order having availed the beneﬁt thereof, at this point of time. With reference to the order dated 16-12-1999, it is stated that the initial promotion orders dated 05-08-1988 were issued promoting the petitioner from Grade-II to Grade-I indicating his seniority from the date of his initial appointment at Nandyal Depot, i.e. 28-03-1974, however, by the impugned order dated 16-02- 1999, the said orders were cancelled, conﬁrming the order dated 10-11-1988. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner was transferred in the year 1978, i.e. prior to amendment of Regulation No.3 of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Service Regulations, the petitioner is entitled for seniority from the date of his initial appointment, i.e. from 28-03-1974. It is further contended that respondents have not indicated any valid reason for canceling the promotion order of the petitioner, promoting him from Grade-II to Grade-I, by the impugned order and the impugned order is passed without giving prior and opportunity to him. 6. On the other hand, it is contended by learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation that the order of transfer was passed transferring the petitioner from one unit to the other on his own request subject to the condition of counting his seniority in the cadre of Conductors, from the date of his joining duty in the Hyderabad city region, and as such, it is not open for the petitioner to question the said order after about 12 years after it is passed. It is further stated that the initial promotion order was issued under a mistaken impression by indicating the seniority from the date of his initial appointment and in correction thereof, the impugned order has been passed canceling the order of promotion issued at first instance. 7. Though the Unit of appointment, seniority etc., for the post of Conductors, was divisional at one point of time, but, however, it was subsequently made regional, i.e. every region is declared as Unit. It is to be noted that the petitioner, on his own request, was transferred by order dated 17-11-1978. I have perused a copy of the order dated 17-11-1978 produced by the learned Standing Counsel. In the said order, it is clearly stated that the request of the petitioner was considered subject to the condition that his seniority would be counted only from the date of joining duty at the present place, i.e. Hyderabad city division. In spite of such condition, the petitioner, without questioning the same at that point of time, joined Hyderabad city divison. In Hyderabad city division, in the seniority list in the cadre of Conductors, he was placed with reference to the date of his joining duty at that division. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the learned single Judge of this court in W.P.No.172 of 1998, but the said judgment cannot render any assistance to the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner had never questioned the condition imposed in the transfer order dated 17-11-1978. In that view of the matter, no direction as sought for can be granted contrary to the condition imposed in the order dated 17-11-1978. Further, with regard to promotion to the post of Grade-I Conductor, it is to be noted that A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Recruitment Regulations, 1966 indicate the manner and method of recruitment for the post of Grade-I Conductor. As per the said Regulations, the post of Grade-I Conductor has to be ﬁlled up with a suitable Grade-II Conductor who has completed seven years of service. The order dated 05-08-1988 promoting the petitioner is cancelled only on the ground that it was issued computing his seniority from 28-03-1974, i.e. from the date of his initial appointment in Nandyal Depot. It is to be noted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Conductor Grade-I by order dated 05-08-1988 and by that time, the petitioner had completed nearly 10 years of service as Grade- II Conductor. The minimum service required for such promotion is only 7 years. In this backdrop, the reason recorded in the impugned order cannot be sustained and the impugned order is fit to be set aside. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the order under challenge, i.e. the order dated 16-02-1999 is quashed. The petitioner be given the beneﬁt of promotion as Grade-I Conductor with reference to the order dated 05-08-1988. 10. The writ petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. August 25, 2008 MRR