THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12656 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner was employed as Watchman in the Food Corporation of India, initially on daily rate basis. Subsequently, he was appointed on regular basis, in the year 1984. The service of the petitioner was regularized, with effect from 21.12.1981. He was promoted to the post of A.G.III (Depot), vide orders dated 25.8.2000. The respondent issued a Memorandum, dated 28.12.2006, requiring the petitioner to explain, as to why he shall not be reverted to the post of Watchman. The promotion of the petitioner was affected, on a wrong assumption that his services were regularized in the post of Watchman, from the year 1976. The petitioner submitted his explanation, and on a consideration of the same, the respondent issued proceedings, dated 6.5.2008, reverting the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. When the writ petition came up for admission, this court directed the respondents to produce the record, as well as orders of appointment of the persons, who were immediately placed above the petitioner, in the list of seniority. The relevant record is placed before this court. The promotion of the petitioner was affected, on the assumption that his services as watchman were regularized, with effect from the year 1976 itself. In fact, the date of appointment of the petitioner was mentioned as 1976, in the register also. However, subsequent verification discloses that his regular appointment was made in the year 1984, with effect from 21.12.1981. There is nothing on record to disclose that his services were regularized, with effect from 1976. On the contrary, several persons, who figured immediately above the petitioner, were regularized, with effect from various dates, in the year 1976. The mere fact that the petitioner came to be engaged earlier to 1981, does not by itself, clothe him, with the right to be promoted, in preference to his seniors. In the matter of promotion, it is always the date of regular appointment, that becomes relevant. The petitioner was not able to offer any valid explanation to the show-cause notice, and the respondents have at best rectified the mistake committed by them, on an earlier occasion. This court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, directed that the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of A.G.III (Depot), shall be considered, as soon as his immediate senior is promoted. It is also made clear that in case the immediate senior in the category of watchman is promoted, the petitioner shall also be promoted, forthwith, by assigning the place below such senior. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 3rd July 2008 PAN