IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8004 of 2009 Between: R.Rameshwari W/o.Sri Krishna O/o,Engineer, in Chief Irrigation and CAD., Jalasoudha Erramanzil,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt of AP., rep.by its Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Engineer in Chief (AW), Irrigation and CAD Depto Jalasoudha, Erramanzil, Hyderabad 3 The Superintendent Engineer (AW), Irrigation Wing Erramanzil, Hyderabad 4 R.Somanath, Son of and age not knwon O/o.Engineer in Chief, (Admn.Wing) Irrigation Dept,. Jalasoudha,. Hyderabad .....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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the Judgment in Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad in OA.No.8368 of 2008 dated 2.3.2008 directing the respondents to call for the records relating to the service particulars of the petitioners herein from the cadre of LDC to the cadre of superintendent along with the Proc.of the Res.No.2 issued in Rc./ENC/R.3/41528/04-1 dated 29.8.2008 examine and declare the said proceedings contrary to service rules and reservation besides being violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the proc.Rc/ENC/R.3/41528/04-1 dated 29.8.2009 of R.2 and seniority list Proc.No.Rc/ENC/83/1181/2005-2 dated 15.7.2008 and consequently direct the officials respondents to promote the petitioner herein to the post of NTPA with all consequential benefits such as service and monetary benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VEERAMREDDIGARI PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES-II. The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per GM, J) This writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “ to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the judgment dated 02.03.2008 passed in O.A.No.8368 of 2008 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and directing the respondents to call for the records relating to the service particulars of the petitioner from the cadre of LDC to the cadre of Superintendent along with the proceedings No.Rc/ENC/R.3/41528/04-1, dated 29.08.2008 of the second respondent and declare the said proceedings as being illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, contrary to service rules and reservation besides being violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the said proceedings and seniority list proceedings No.Rc/ENC/83/1181/2005-2, dated 15/07/2008, and consequently direct the official respondents to promote the petitioner herein to the post of NTPA with all consequential benefits such as service and monetary benefits’. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk/ Junior Assistant on 12.04.1976 in Irrigation Department and her services were regularized provisionally in the said cadre vide proceedings dated 07.01.1980 as per G.O.Ms.No.647, dated 14.9.1979, and her name was shown at Sl.No.5. Thereafter, the second respondent has issued a provisional seniority list of Junior Assistants as on 01.10.1989, vide proceedings dated 06.03.1990, wherein the petitioner’s name was shown at Sl.No.19 and her date of regularization was mentioned as 30.09.1983. The second respondent has issued a revised integrated final seniority list of Junior Assistants as on 01.10.1989, vide proceedings dated 17.12.1994, wherein the petitioner’s name was shown at Sl.No.20 and her date of regularization was mentioned as 30.09.1983. The second respondent also issued a final seniority list of Senior Assistants vide proceedings dated 17.05.2003, wherein the petitioner’s name was shown at Sl.No.77 and her date of regularization of service in the cadre of Senior Assistant was mentioned as 14.09.1995. Again, the second respondent has issued zone-wise seniority list of Superintendents as on 15.07.2008 vide proceedings dated 15.07.2008, wherein the name of the fourth respondent was shown at Sl.No.7, but the name of the petitioner was not found in the list, though she is senior to him. The petitioner states that as the respondents have given priority to the candidates, who were appointed on compassionate grounds, and who were transferred from other Districts into the Heads of the Department at Hyderabad and also APPSC candidates, the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Superintendent was affected. The petitioner made several representations to the official respondents, but they were in vain. However, she got promotion as Superintendent on 18.09.2006, whereas, the fourth respondent has been promoted from the post of Superintendent to Non-Technical Personal Assistant vide proceedings dated 29.08.2008. Challenging the said proceedings, she filed O.A.No.8368 of 2008, but the same was dismissed on the ground that the respondents have meticulously followed the seniority while effecting the promotions and that the petitioner is much junior to the fourth respondent in the cadre of Senior Assistant and Superintendent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 12.04.1976 and her services were regularized in the said cadre, her case has not been considered for promotion from the date of her joining on par with her junior, i.e., fourth respondent, who came from Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, and that she was only promoted as Superintendent at the stage of her retirement. He further contended that because of non-revising the seniority list in accordance with the date of joining and date of regularization, the petitioner has been deprived of her promotion as Non-Technical Personal Assistant. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that the claim of the petitioner for promotion is a belated one and that pursuant the directions given by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.40155 to 40166 of 1990 dated 02.01.1992, the respondents revised the regularization orders of the petitioner and others and the services of the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant were regularized with effect from 30.09.1983 and as the said order was not challenged, it attained finality and further promotions have been effected and that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the material on record. 6. A perusal of the material on record would show that the petitioner and others have filed O.A.Nos.40155 to 40166 of 1990 questioning the proceedings dated 06.03.1990, by which, a provisional integrated seniority list of Junior Assistants has been issued, and the said O.As. were disposed of on 02.01.1992 directing the respondents therein to make adhoc promotions pending finalization of seniority, limited them for a period of six months from the date of promotion and review the adhoc promotions within two months from the date of finalization of the final seniority list. In view of the said directions, the respondents have regularized the services of the petitioner with effect from 30.09.1983 and thereafter, final integrated seniority list of Junior Assistants dated 17.12.1994 was published and the final seniority list of Senior Assistants as on 01.03.1999, was issued on 7.05.2003, wherein the fourth respondent was shown at Sl.No.10 and the petitioner’s name at Sl.No.77 and therefore, based on the said final seniority list of Senior Assistants, promotions have been effected to the cadre of superintendent. 7. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.40155 to 40166 of 1990 dated 02.01.1992, wherein the petitioner was also arrayed as the applicant, the respondents have effected promotions. But, the petitioner has not challenged the said order and at the stage of her retirement i.e.,in June, 2009, she cannot claim for revising the seniority list of Senior Assistants. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed O.A.No.8368 of 2008, and we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date: 22.04.2009 sj