THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No. 7781 of 2004 -02-2010 Between: V.Srinivas ……….Petitioner And The Superintendent of Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Vijayawada and others. ………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No. 7781 of 2004 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Noushad Ali) The petitioner claiming to be senior to the 4th respondent approached the AP Administrative Tribunal (for brevity ‘the Tribunal), Hyderabad and filed O.A.No.5091 of 2000 to declare his seniority over the 4th respondent by confirming the seniority list of Draughtsman Grade- III, issued by the 1st respondent-Superintending Engineer, P.R. (RWS.Circle), Vijayawada, in Memo No.A3/619/97, dated 17-12-1997. Pending disposal of O.A., he also filed M.A.No.2087 of 2001 to suspend the Memo Nos.A1/1537/01, dated 13-06-2001 and A2/1537/01, dated 19-06-2001 of the 1st respondent and M.A.No.3869 of 2002 to suspend the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Roc.No.A2/1537/Gr.I/02, dated 05-08-2002. The O.A. along with the M.AS. were dismissed by the Tribunal by orders dated 17-03-2004. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Technical Works Inspector in the year 1981 in West Godavari District. The post of Technical Works Inspector is a District-Wise post. Thereafter, he was appointed as a Tracer in the year 1984, which is a Feeder category to the post of Draughtsman Grade-III. He was promoted as Draughtsman Grade-III in the year 1991 and later as Draughtsman Grade-II in the year 1999. A seniority list of Draughtsman Grade-III in respect of Zone-II was prepared vide Memo No.A3/619/97, dated 17-12- 1997. In the said seniority list, the petitioner was at serial No.25, whereas the 4th respondent was at serial No.114. Although the petitioner was senior to the 4th respondent as per the seniority list dated 17-12-1997, the 4th respondent was promoted to the Grade-III on 29-06- 1998 and again as Grade II from 29-08-1998 to which he was not entitled. 3. The case of the 4th respondent is that he was appointed as Technical Works Inspector in the year 1978. At the time of his appointment, he had passed I.T.I. (Mechanical) and later passed I.T.I. (Civil) in the year 1982. A seniority list was prepared by the Superintendent Engineer, P.R., Eluru, vide Memo No.11511/A3/87, dated 04-08-1989, in which the 4th respondent was at serial No.16 and the names of some of his juniors were at serial Nos.30,31, 33 and 36. Ignoring his seniority, his juniors were promoted as Tracers by the proceedings No.23/A3/86, dated 01-02-1992 of the Superintendent Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Eluru. He, therefore, filed O.A.No.1235/92 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. by orders dated 29-01-1998, holding that the 4th respondent was senior, consequently, the Tribunal directed the respondent-authorities therein to consider the case of the 4th respondent for promotion to the category of Tracer/ Draughtsman Grade-III and promote him to the said post provided he was otherwise eligible and qualified for such promotion. The Tribunal further directed that if any of his juniors had been promoted, the 4th respondent would be entitled for a notional date of promotion with all consequential service benefits. In pursuance of the orders of the Tribunal, the respondent-authorities rectified the mistake and duly incorporated his seniority at serial No.15 in the seniority list vide Memo No.A-3/619/97, dated 17-12-1997. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim seniority over the 4th respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II and the learned counsel for R-4. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner having been promoted as Draughtsman Grade-III, in the year 1991 as per the seniority list in which he was shown at serial No.25 and the 4th respondent was shown at serial No.114, the respondent- authorities should not have disturbed the seniority without notice to the petitioner. He further contended that the petitioner was not a party to O.A.No.1235 of 1992 and hence, the orders in the O.A. are not binding on him. He further contended that the 4th respondent was promoted as Draughtsman Grade-III, by proceedings dated 29-06-1998 and thus, within a short period of two months, again he was promoted as Draughtsman Grade-II, by proceedings dated 29-08-1998. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent contended that the seniority of the 4th respondent was rightly restored by virtue of the orders in O.A.No.1235 of 1992, dated 29- 01-1998 and the Tribunal rightly dismissed the O.A. 7. From the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed as Technical Works Inspector in the year 1981, whereas, the 4th respondent was appointed as a Technical Works Inspector on 18- 03-1978. The 4th respondent is, therefore, senior to the petitioner in the category of Technical Works Inspector. The post of Technical Works Inspector is a Feeder post for further promotions. It is not in dispute that ignoring the seniority of the 4th respondent, some of his juniors were promoted to the post of Tracer/Draughtsman. The seniority of the 4th respondent was ignored only on the ground that he acquired I.T.I. (Civil) qualification in the year 1982 and therefore, his seniority had to be reckoned in the category of Technical Works Inspector from the said date only. The respondents, while so reckoning his seniority, ignored the fact that the 4th respondent was already qualified as I.T.I. (Mechanical) and that I.T.I. (Civil) qualification was not necessary for the appointment to the post of Technical Works Inspector. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the seniority of the 4th respondent must be reckoned from 1978 for the purpose of promotion to the category of Tracer and accordingly directed the respondent-authorities therein to consider his case for promotion. The respondent-authorities, therefore, rightly placed him at serial No.15 in the seniority list, dated 17-12-1997. The 4th respondent having been appointed in 1978 was denied his seniority on a wrong premise and the same was rectified pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1235 of 1992. The petitioner, therefore, cannot take advantage of a mistake committed in the preparation of seniority list. In this view of the matter, the contention that the petitioner was not a party to O.A.No.1235 of 1992 and that he had no notice of the revision of seniority list is without any substance. The petitioner did not even challenge the orders dated 29-01-1998 in O.A.No.1235 of 1992 and the same became final. 8. As a result of incorporating respondent No.4 at serial No.15 in the seniority list dated 17-12-1997, he was promoted as Draughtsman Grade-III vide proceedings dated 19-06-1998 and later, as 15 posts of Draughtsman Grade-II fell vacant in Zone-II during August 1998, the 4th respondent became eligible and accordingly, appointed as Draughtsman Grade-II vide proceedings dated 19-08-1998. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 4th respondent was wrongly promoted either as Draughtsman Grade-III or Draughtsman Grade-II. 9. The Tribunal considered all the relevant facts and rightly dismissed the O.A. along with M.As. There is no infirmity in the orders of the Tribunal warranting judicial review in this writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Dated: -02-2010 ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI KVR