THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.19403 OF 2006 DATED: 29.01.2008 Between: K. Anand .. Petitioner And Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur, rep. by its Vice Chancellor, Anantapur and others. .. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.19403 OF 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in promoting the 7th respondent to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (Civil), vide proceedings No.SKU/ESTT/E1/2006 dated 11.09.2006, overlooking the seniority of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional; and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (Civil). It appears, the petitioner, after obtaining Degree in Civil Engineering, was appointed as Work Inspector in the 1st respondent University in the year 1989, on temporary basis. Subsequently, in the year 1990, he was promoted as Field Engineer and, thereafter, he was taken on deputation as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) with effect from 01.09.1992 and since then he is working as such. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 06.12.1994, his services were regularized with effect from 01.09.1992. While so, the petitioner alleges that he is senior to the 7th respondent, who is also working as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer and further he possesses Degree in Civil Engineering, while the 7th respondent holds a Diploma in Civil Engineering. But, ignoring his seniority and possessing requisite qualification of Degree in Civil Engineering to hold the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings, dated 11.09.2006, promoting the 7th respondent to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (Civil). It seems, the 7th respondent, who is possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering, was appointed as Draughtsman in the 1st respondent University in the year 1985 on temporary basis and has been ultimately promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) on 28.09.2001 only; whereas the petitioner was promoted to the said post with effect from 01.09.1992. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent University, it is stated that since there are no rules governing the service conditions of the employees working in Engineering Branch of the University, the Selection Committee has taken into account the initial appointment of the candidates for the purpose of fixing seniority for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, and thereby the 7th respondent, who was appointed prior to the petitioner, has been promoted. Learned counsel for the respondent University stated that there is only one post available in each cadre and, therefore, the date of initial appointment has been taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority. He further stated that even the Superintending Engineer, who is heading the Engineering Section of the University, is only a Diploma Holder and, thus, whether the petitioner has got a Degree or Diploma, it makes no difference. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, the feeder category, with effect from 01.09.1992, whereas the 7th respondent was promoted to the said post in the year 2001 only. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is senior to the 7th respondent in the feeder category. Unfortunately, ignoring the said fact, 7th respondent has been promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer and now the University is trying to justify its action taking a stand that since no rules governing the service conditions of employees are available, the date of initial appointment has been taken into consideration for fixing the seniority. This stand taken by the 1st respondent University is unreasonable and irrational. May be holding of Degree or Diploma may not have any bearing, but the fact that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, feeder category, nine years prior to the 7th respondent, would itself indicate that he could have been given preference for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer. But, the same was not done. Thus, the course adopted by the respondent University in promoting the 7th respondent, ignoring the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal. Be that as it may, it is brought to the notice of the Court that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was also promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer with effect from 01.10.2007. In view of the above, the respondent University is directed to treat that the petitioner is promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer with effect from 11.09.2006, on par with the 7th respondent, and he shall be extended all the benefits from that date, except the difference of wages. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 29th January, 2008. IBL