THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 25365 OF 1998 DATE: 28-1-2008 1. P.Sundara Rao …. Petitioner and 1. The Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Secunderabad And 5 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 25365 OF 1998 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in considering the case of the respondents 3 to 5 for promotion to the post of Inspector/Fire, vide proceedings dated 6.8.1998 without finalizing the seniority list, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner, in effect, contends that he is senior to respondents 3 to 6 in the category of Sub-Inspector (Fire). The petitioner was considered for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Fire), pursuant to Employment notification No.1/79, his appointment even after the date of his selection was delayed on account of the dispute regarding the genuineness of his social status/caste certificate. Eventually, pursuant to an order of this Court in W.P.4962/83 dated 24.10.1983, the petitioner was sent for training on 2.7.1984 and, on completion of training, was appointed as Sub-Inspector (Fire) with effect from 28.4.1985, vide proceedings dated 30.4.1985. Respondents 3 to 6 were promoted as Sub-Inspector (Fire) consequent upon 10 posts of Head Constables (fire) having been upgraded to that of Sub-Inspector (Fire). They were given the benefit of appointment as Sub- Inspector (Fire) retrospectively from 1.4.1983 pursuant to the South Central Railway Force Order No.191/86 dated 23.9.1986. Since respondents 3 to 6 were appointed retrospectively with effect from 1.4.1983 as Sub-Inspectors (Fire), their date of appointment being prior in time to the date of appointment of the petitioner as Sub-inspector (Fire) on 28.4.1985, they were treated as seniors to the petitioner and considered prior to him for promotion to the post of Inspector (Fire). Sri J.M.Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that giving retrospective promotion to respondents 3 to 6 who, despite their selection in 1986, were given the benefit of appointment as Sub-inspectors (Fire) with effect from 1.4.1983, thereby making them seniors to the petitioner, was illegal since a person’s appointment can only be from the date of his actual appointment and not from the date he was permitted to officiate in the said post. Learned counsel would further contend that if the action of respondents 1 and 2 in extending retrospective benefit of promotion to respondents 3 to 6 is held to be valid, the petitioner ought also to have been held entitled to such benefit of retrospective appointment since it the respondents’ fault, in not appointing him earlier on the ground that his social status was not genuine which had resulted in his being belatedly appointed as Sub-Inspector (Fire) on 28.4.1985. While the submission of Sri J.M.Naidu cannot be said to be without merit, it cannot be lost sight of that, even in this writ petition, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the validity of the South Central Railway Protection Force order No.191/86 dt.23.9.1986 whereby respondents 3 to 6 were given the benefit of retrospective promotion from 1.4.1983. In the absence of any specific challenge to the order, giving the benefit of retrospective promotion to respondents 3 to 6 the OrderNO.191/86 dated 23.9.1986 must be presumed to be valid and the consequential revision in the provisional seniority list placing respondents 3 to 6 above the petitioner cannot be faulted. Sri J.M.Naidu, learned counsel for petitioner, would contend that the petitioner was not aware of such an order being passed till a copy thereof was made available along with the counter affidavit. Even if the said contention were to be accepted as true, there is no challenge to the validity of the order dated 23.9.1986 even thereafter. As such promotion of respondents 3 to 6 from 1.4.1983 does not necessitate interference in this writ petition. With regards the petitioner’s contention that he should also been given the benefit of retrospective appointment, it must be noted that no such relief has been sought for in this writ petition. The only challenge, in this writ petition, is to the action of respondents 1 and 2 in considering respondents 3 to 6 as Inspectors (Fire) prior to the petitioner on the basis of a provisional seniority list. It is not in dispute that the seniority list was prepared taking into consideration the relevant dates of appointment of respondents 3 to 6 on the one hand and that of the petitioner on the other. Since respondents 3 to 6 were promoted with effect from 1.4.1983 which is prior in time to the date of appointment of the petitioner on 28.4.1985, respondents 3 to 6 being seniors to the petitioner as Sub-Inspector (Fire), respondents 1 and 2 rightly considered them for promotion to the post of Inspector (Fire) before considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the said post. The action of the respondents in this regard cannot be faulted. Sri J.M.Naidu, Learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that he reliably learnt that the petitioner has also been promoted as Inspector (Fire) during the pendency of this writ petition. Sri Gouri Shankar Sanghi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the railways, would express ignorance of what transpired during the pendency of this writ petition. It is made clear that, in case the petitioner has been promoted as Inspector (Fire) during the pendency of this writ petition, the order now passed would not disentitle him from any such benefit which the respondents may have chosen to extend to him on their own accord. The writ petition, however, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. __________ 28-1-2008 asp