IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 17533 of 1999 Between: 1 N. Parandhamaiah son of Nageswaraiah Technican Grade-I, Train Lighting Shop, Garriage Repair Shop Tirupathi, Chittoor dist 2 Balaji Suresh son of S.Balarji singh Technican Grade-I, Train Lighting Shop, Garriage Repair Shop Tirupathi, Chittoor dist 3 K.Ramesh Reddy son of K. Murugesham Technican-I, Train Lighting Shop, Garriage Repair Shop Tirupathi, Chittoor dist 4 D.Khader Habeeb Khan son of Mahaboob Ali Khan Technican-I, Train Lighting Shop, Garriage Repair Shop Tirupathi, Chittoor dist 5 N.Srinvasulu son of N. Krishnaiah Technican-I, Train Lighting Shop, Garriage Repair Shop Tirupathi, Chittoor dist 6 Md.Maqshiood Ali son of Md.Mahabood Basha Technican-I, Train Lighting Shop, Garriage Repair Shop Tirupathi, Chittoor dist 7 Uday Roy son of G.C. Roy Technican-I, Train Lighting Shop, Garriage Repair Shop Tirupathi, Chittoor dist 8 Shaik Abdulla son of S.A. Jabbar Technican-I, Train Lighting Shop, Garriage Repair Shop Tirupathi, Chittoor dist 9 K.Ventasubba Reddy son of K.VentataReddy Technican-I, Train Lighting Shop, Garriage Repair Shop Tirupathi, Chittoor dist ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Registrar, Haca Bhavan The Central Adm-inistrative Tribunal Hyderabad Berch, Hyderabad 2 General Manager Union of India south Central Railway , Seunderabad 3 The Dy. Chef Machanical Engineer Carriage Repair Shop, south Central Railway, Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 4 The Workshop Personal Officer S.C. Railway , Carriage Repair Shop Tirupuati Chittoor Dist 5 P.V. Ramanaiah son of Subbaiah Working as Train Lighting Fitter Grade-III, Carriage Repair Shop, S.C. Railway , Tirpuathi, Chittoor Dist 6 M.Srinivasan son of S.Muttu Working as Train Lighting Fitter-III Carriage Repair Shop, S.C. Railway , Tirpuathi, Chittoor Dist 7 M.Surahmanyam son of M.Krishnaiah Working as Train Lighting Fitter-III Carriage Repair Shop, S.C. Railway , Tirpuathi, Chittoor Dist 8 S.Arul Kumar son of E.Shanm-ugam Working as Train Lighting Fitter-III 75-CI, East Colony, Railway Quartiers, Renigutta, Chittoor Dist 9 K.S. Vino Babu son of K.J. Sundaram Working as Train Lighting Fitter Grade-I R/o Balaji Colony, Tirupathi, 10 N.Jayachandra Reddy son of N.Venkata Reddy T.L.Shop, C.R.S. M. Tirupathi, Chittoor dist 11 M.Vijayaraghavulu son of P.J. Manavalla Chettiar TL shop, CRS, Tirupathi Chittoor Dist 12 T.Nagaraju son of T.Ankaiah Working as Techincian -I CRS., Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 13 A.Munivelu son of Armugam Techincian -I CRS., Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 14 P.Chandram Ouli son of Lakshmaiah Techincian -II, TL Shop, CRS., Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 15 M.Venkatesan son of Munuswam Y Techincian -I, TL Shop, CRS., Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 16 P.Natarajan son of K.Perumal Techincian -I, TL Shop, CRS., Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 17 D.China Rangaiah son of D.Rangaih Techincian -I, TL Shop, CRS., Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 18 Ch.Venkataramanaiah son of Venkatesubbaiah Techincian -I, TL Shop, CRS., Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 19 G.Thulasingam son of Gopal Techincian -I, TL Shop, CRS., Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 20 M.Nagaraja son of Govinda Naidu Techincian -I, TL Shop, CRS., Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 21 SK.Khader Bashan son of Sk. Masthan Saheb Techincian -I, TL Shop, CRS., Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 22 M.Vadivelu son of Mumma Naidu Techincian -II, TL Shop, CRS., Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 23 H.Victor Page son of Henry Page Techincian -I, TL Shop, CRS., Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 24 A.S. Jayaraman son of Jayaraman Techincian -II, TL Shop, CRS., Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 25 K.Desappa son of Armugam Techincian -II, TL Shop, CRS., Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 26 K.Brahamaiah son of Siddachari Techincian -II, TL Shop, CRS., Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist 27 A.Venkatrama Naidu son of Ranga Naidu Techincian -II, TL Shop, CRS., Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ or order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in OA.No. 647/97 dt. 16/04/99 is so far as directing to modify the seniority list dt. 9-05/97 to place the respondent s 5 to 7 herein (Applicants in OA.No. 647/97) above thd direct recruits in Train Lighting Shop, Carriage Repair Shop, Tirupathi, Chittoor District in the O.A filed to adjudicated the dispute about the seniority interse between the promotees as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice, setaside the same Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.S.MURTHY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 17533 of 1999 Oral Order : ( Per Sri GM , J ) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in O.A.No.647 of 1997 dated 16-4-1999 insofar as directing to modify the seniority list dated 9-5-1997 to place the respondents 5 to 7 herein ( Applicants in O.S.No.647 of 1997) above the direct recruits in Train Lighting Shop, Carriage Repair Shop, Tirupati, Chittoor District. O.A.No.647 of 1997 was filed by three applicants namely P.V. Ramaiah, M. Srinivasan, M. Subramanyam to set aside the proceedings dated 9-5-1997, and to protect their seniority and to continue them in the Skilled Grade II with all consequential benefits. The main contention of the applicants therein was that they were seniors to the applicants in O.A.No.873 of 1993 having been promoted to skilled Grade III on 13.9.1989, 30.3.1991 and 30.3.1990 respectively, the direction in O.A.No.873 of 1992 has no bearing in fixing their seniority as the respondents therein were direct recruits. Since the judgment passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.873 of 1992 only resolved the dispute of seniority between 23 promotees as per the list dated 7.5.1991 and 43 direct recruits appointed in response to the notification dated 26.4.1986, the Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record came to the factual conclusion that the judgment in O.A.No.873 of 1992 does not indicate the seniority position of those who were promoted as Skilled Grade III earlier to 23 promotees as per the list dated 7.5.1991 and 43 direct recruits appointed in response to the notification dated 26.4.1986. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under : “ It is stated that three applicants herein were promoted to Skilled Gr.III on 13.9.1989, 30,3.1992 and 30.3.1991 respectively earlier to the 23 promotees as per the list dated 7.5.1991. That would mean that three applicants herein could have been promoted on or earlier to 27.5.1988 and after promoting them only the list of 23 promotees in the list of 7.5.1991 will come up for consideration for promotion to Skilled Grade-III on 27.5.1988. Hence, we see no reason to bring down the seniority of the 3 applicants herein below that of promotees and direct recruits whose inter-se seniority was decided in O.A.No.873/1992. Hence, it has to be held that the final seniority list dated 9.5.1997 requires modification to the effect that the applicants herein should be placed above that of 23 promotees and 43 direct recruits. That would mean that these three applicants will come above first leg as given in para 24(i) of the direction given in O.A.No.873 of 1992. ” The Tribunal, in view of the above factual position, disposed of the O.A. holding that the applicants in O.A.No.647 of 1997 are entitled for placement in the seniority list of Skilled Gr. III above 21 direct recruits, who are to be placed in first leg as per the para 24(i) of the judgment in O.A.No.873 of 1992 and accordingly granted consequential benefits in that regard. In the circumstances, we do not see any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court. The Writ Petition is meritless and is dismissed. No costs. ________________ GM, J ________________ CVR, J Kk/pnv 11-6-2008