THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.12043 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 01.04.2009 passed in O.A.No.8100 of 2008 with C.A.No.3 of 2009 and VMA No.310 of 2009 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondents, while working as Head Constables in 9th Battalion, Venkatagiri, Nellore District, opted to work in the newly created 14th battalion at Anantapur, in view of the guidelines issued by the 2nd petitioner vide memo dated 04.06.2005 that the seniority of Police Constables and Head Constables transferred from the existing Battalion to the newly formed Battalion on administrative grounds will be protected in the new Battalion. Accordingly, 4th petitioner issued proceedings D.O.No.358/05, C.No.234/A/05, dt. .09.2005 transferring the respondents to 14th Battalion and they are working as such. Thereafter, they made several representations to the petitioners to repatriate them to their parent unit for the purpose of promotion, but no action has been taken thereon though the repatriation of similarly situated persons’ was cancelled and transferred to their parent units. Hence, the respondents filed the above said O.A. before the Tribunal and it was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. 4th respondent filed counter stating that Rules 12 and 110 of the Special Rules of the Fundamental Rules do not deal with the seniority aspect and termination of lien in the parent unit and that as per Rule 19 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules’), unless lien is terminated or suspended in parent unit, the respondents are entitled to get promotion as per their seniority in the parent unit. He further stated that the memo dated 04.06.2005 is not made available to any employee by the petitioners at any point of time and it was an internal correspondence between the authorities. Thus, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I vehemently contended that the respondents are fully aware of the guidelines issued in memo dated 04.06.3005 as it has been communicated to all the employees and that the Tribunal has committed error in appreciating the said guidelines in proper perspective. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the emphasis of Clause 3 of the said memo, which reads as under: “3. PCs and HCs, who are not in ‘C’ list and transferred to newly created Battalion will have to sit in the promotion examination whenever it is conducted in the new Battalion and they will forego their lien and right to sit in promotion examination in their parent unit”. Learned Government Pleader further contended that as the respondents were not included in ‘C’ list of their original Battalion, their lien and seniority will be terminated at their parent unit. He further contended as per Rule 35(a) of the Rules, the similarly situated persons were repatriated to their parent department as their names were included in ‘C’ list in their original Battalion at the time of their transfer to the new Battalion. He submitted that though the petitioners have committed mistake in repatriating certain candidates, who have not fulfilled the requirements of memo dated 04.06.2005 they have rectified the same. He further submitted that the seniority of the respondents, on their repatriation to their original Battalion, has to be fixed in the original Battalion in accordance with Rule 35(b) of the Rules, which reads as under: “The seniority of a member of a service, class or category, who is transferred on his own request from one unit of appointment to another unit of appointment shall be fixed with reference to the date of his joining duty in the latter unit of appointment”. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that though the respondents have transferred to 14th Battalion, but, nonetheless, their lien is not terminated or suspended in 9th Battalion and therefore, they are entitled to get promotion as per their seniority in the parent unit in accordance with Rule 19(c) of the Rules. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in S. NARAYANA v. MD AHMEDULLA KHAN[1] wherein it was held as under: “The learned counsel for the appellant also urged that the High Court had misunderstood the concept of a lien on a post. He contended, and rightly in our view, that there was nothing like lien on a post, unless a person was made permanent in a post. Strong reliance was placed on the observation of this Court in Triveni Shankar Saxena v. State of U.P ((1992) Supp.1 SCC 524) wherein after examining the concept of lien in Government service, it was observed:.. a person can be said to acquire a lien on a post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on that post and not earlier, with which view we are in agreement”. 6. Now, the point for consideration is whether the Tribunal has committed jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court. 7. We have perused the material on record. The facts of the case are clear that the respondents knowing fully aware of the guidelines in memo, dated 04.06.2005 have opted to work in the newly created 4th Battalion. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the copy of the said memo is not communicated to the respondents and it is an internal correspondence between the authorities cannot be accepted. 8. Admittedly, the respondents were not figured in ‘C’ list of 9th Battalion at the time of their transfer to 14th Battalion. Clause 3 of memo dated 04.06.2005 is abundantly clear that when the employees, who are not in ‘C’ list and transferred to newly created Battalion, will have to sit in the promotion examination whenever it is conducted in the new Battalion and they will forego their lien and right to sit in promotion examination in their parent Unit. Therefore, the respondents cannot seek for repatriation to their parent unit for the purpose of promotion. Hence, we are of the view that the Tribunal without going into all these aspects has passed the order impugned. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order impugned. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:19.02.2010. sj 1 [1] AIR 2006 SC 2224