IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25630 of 1998 Between: Sk. M. Jony S/o. Ansarmia (Muslim), O/o Asst. Divisional Engineer (Operations) Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam Distict. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.Electricity Board, Rep. by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 Superintending Engineer(Operations) A.P.S.E.B. Visakhapatnam. 3 Divisional Electrical Engineer(O) A.P.S.E.B. Annkapalli, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue any Writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the Nature of MANDAMUS declaring the Memo No. DE(O)AKP/Ad/U/D No. 281 dt. 27.3.1998 of the 3rd Respondent as arbitrary, illegal and nullifying the same direct recasting of his seniority by placing him at appropriate place and direct further promotion to the post of Line Inspector with effect from the date his junior has been promoted to the post of Line Inspector by proceedings Memo No. DEE.OP.AKP.AD,U.D.No.820/98 dt.4.9.98 of the third Respondent herein and pass such other order or orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner, who was working as a Lineman in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB), filed this writ petition questioning the memo dated 27-03-1998 issued in Memo No. DE (O) AKP/Ad/U/D No.281. The petitioner was appointed as a Helper on 08-08-1984 in the erstwhile APSEB. Later on, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Lineman on 28-10-1986 and Lineman on 13-05-1989. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was senior to four other persons viz., G.Srinivasa Rao, Kasiraji Jogarao, M.Kameswar Rao and V.Appala Raju in the seniority list prepared in the category of Helper and though further promotions to the posts of Assistant Lineman and Lineman were based on the seniority list alone, but, ignoring his case, he was shown as junior to the above said persons in the seniority list prepared in the category of Assistant Lineman. It is stated by the petitioner that as much as the seniority list alone was the consideration for promotions, there was no reason for showing him as junior to the persons referred to above and when he filed an application for review of the seniority list, the impugned memo was issued, without assigning any valid reasons. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent-APSEB. In the counter-affidavit, it is categorically stated that the seniority list in the category of Assistant Lineman was communicated to all the individuals vide letter DEE.O.AKP.Ad.U/2532/88, dated 30-07-1988, but no objections were filed by any individual, as such further promotions were effected to the post of Lineman as per the applicable Rules by considering the candidates who figured in the seniority list in the category of Assistant Lineman. It is stated that after effecting promotions to the post of Lineman also, seniority list in the category of Lineman was prepared vide Memo No.373/90, dated 03-02-1990, the same was communicated to all the individuals concerned, but no objections were filed by any one at any point of time. Admittedly, petitioner and the four other persons referred by the petitioner in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, were promoted as Assistant Linemen as early as in the year 1988 and the seniority list in the category of Assistant Lineman was prepared in the year 1988. But the petitioner did not choose to file any objections to the said seniority list. Even, according to the petitioner, he was shown junior to the other four persons at the stage of Assistant Lineman itself. It is also not in dispute that from the category of Assistant Lineman further promotions were effected to the post of Lineman in which category also seniority list was prepared as early as in the year 1990 and to this seniority list also the petitioner did not choose to file any objections and without questioning the seniority list, now, he cannot seek review of the same at this stage. By seeking review of the seniority list at this belated stage, the petitioner cannot claim any seniority over the other four persons. There are also further reasons to reject the claim of the petitioner at this stage. Though petitioner is claiming seniority over the other four persons, who are presently working as Linemen, they are not made party-respondents to this writ petition. If any direction for seniority, as claimed by the petitioner, is given, it will definitely affect the seniority and rights of the other persons. Without making them party respondents, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Further, though the erstwhile APSEB was divided into several other power generating companies under the Companies Act, it is not known to which Company the petitioner was allotted and no steps have been taken by the petitioner to make the Company to which he was allotted as party-respondent to this writ petition. For the aforementioned reasons, no relief can be granted. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Dated 16th April, 2008 vrn ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 A.P.S.Electricity Board, Rep. by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 Superintending Engineer(Operations) A.P.S.E.B. Visakhapatnam. 3 Divisional Electrical Engineer(O) A.P.S.E.B. Annkapalli, Visakhapatnam. 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RAGHU}