IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 17072 of 2005 Between: Surantaneni Samba Siva Koteswara Rao, S/o. Venkatappaiah, (Late) (Draught's men Gr.I), Irrigation Circle, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1Ch. Venkata Rayalu, Draught's men Gr.III, Irrigation Circle, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2T. Ramesh, Draught's men Gr. III, O/o. the A.P.H.M., Gudiwada, Krishna District. 3The Engineer-in-Chief, Administration Wing, I & CAD Department, Govt. of A.P. Errummenzil, Hyderabad. 4The Superintending Engineer, Govt. of A.P. Irrigation Circle, Vijayawada. 5V. Surayanarayana Murthy, Superintending Engineer, Govt. of A.P., Irrigation Circle, Vijayawada. 6T. Nirikshana Rao, Draught's men Gr.II, K.C. Division, Irrigation, Vijayawada. 7K. Kameswara Rao, Draught's men Gr.II, Special Division, Irrigation, Vijayawada. 8Ch. L.P. Bhaskar, Draught's men Gr.II, K.C. Division, Irrigation, Vijayawada. 9D.S.N. Gupta, Draught's men Gr.II, Drainage Division, Gudiwada, Krishna District. .....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 or Writ or Writ Order are more particularly one in the nature of Writ of "Certiorari" calling for records pertaining to the orders passed by the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 9796/2002 dt. 07-6-2005 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 of the constitution of India apart from against the principles of natural justice and consequently declare that the petitioner is senior to the unofficial respondents 1 & 2 (applicants in O.A) and respondents 1 & 2 are entitled for seniority in the cadre of Draught's men Gr.III from the date of their absorption in the Irrigation Circle only as per proceedings No. 81/EC1/1047m dt. 28-8-2002. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1 and 2: P. Naveen Rao Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4: G.P. for Services-II The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR W.P. No. 17072 of 2005 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 7.6.2005 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 9796 of 2002. The petitioner herein is the 5th respondent in O.A. No. 9796 of 2002 which was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein before the Tribunal. The said O.A. was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein seeking to call for the records relating to Proceedings No.S1/EC.1/1328-M dated 16.10.2002 of the 2nd respondent and to quash or set aside the promotion of persons shown from Serial Nos. 3 to 7 and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 therein to promote the applicants – respondents 1 and 2 herein as Draughtsman Grade-II on and from the date of promotion of their juniors with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 16.10.2002 and consequently directing respondents 1 and 2 therein to consider the claim of the applicants – respondents 1 and 2 herein for promotion as Draughtsmen Grade II with effect from the date of promotion of their juniors and to accord all consequential benefits. Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Though respondents 5 to 9 are added as parties to this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they are not necessary parties to this writ petition and the petitioner is not claiming any relief against them. The case of the petitioner is that in the seniority list prepared by S.E., Irrigation Circle, Vijayawada vide letter No.S1/EC.1/442-ENC11 dated 24.11.1995 his name was placed at Sl.No.1 in the Tracers category. He was promoted as Draughtsman Grade-III in the year 1995. At the time of his promotion as Draughtsman Grade-III, respondents 1 and 2 herein were posted and they were continuing in the supernumerary posts in the category of Draughtsmen Grade-III. Respondents 1 and 2 were posted in the Circle on redeployment of surplus staff consequent on closure of CERP Division only. Hence, they are not having any right to claim seniority over and above the petitioner. It is further stated that respondents 1 and 2 were posted in Irrigation Circle, Viayawada as per the precedence of ENC dated 25.7.1995 by creating supernumerary posts and CERP unit was formed newly in Davaleswaram as Head Quarters during the year 1991 with its other circles and divisions located in other districts in Zone I, Zone II and Zone III. The excess staff rendered surplus in the units were repatriated to their zones due to implementation of the presidential order and the staff who were continuing in the said Circle against supernumerary posts in the above zones were accommodated in CERP Unit. The CERP unit was abolished in the year 1995 due to completion of the scheme. Thus, the respondents 1 and 2 were accommodated in the Irrigation Circle, Vijayawada in the year 1995 by creating the supernumerary posts. It is further stated that respondents 1 and 2 were posted in the Irrigation Circle, Vijayawada to the category of Draughtsmen Grade-III as per the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 8183 of 2002. But, they approached the Tribunal challenging the promotion orders of the petitioner issued by the S.E. vide proceedings No. S1.EC.1/1328M dated 16.10.2002. It is further stated that the respondents 1 and 2 were further promoted as Assistant Technical Officers (Draughtsmen Grade-II) by the S.E., Irrigation Circle vide proceedings No. S1.EC.1/587 dated 3.6.2005 but without mentioning the same before the Tribunal the respondents 1 and 2 obtained orders illegally. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that vide proceedings No.CB/s1/EC.1/765M dated 8.7.2007 the seniority of the petitioner and these respondents was revised and the respondents 1 and 2 were placed at Sl.Nos. 4 and 5 respectively in the cadre of Junior Technical Officer (Draughtsman Gr.III) and the petitioner was assigned placement at Sl.No.7. His date of promotion is 24.11.1995 whereas they were appointed on 3.9.1979 and 12.2.1980 respectively. They are granted the date of promotion as Assistant Technical Officer with effect from 16.10.2002 including the petitioner. However, they are given higher placements above the petitioner. Consequently, promotion to Technical Officer is also revised and they are granted paper promotions with effect from 30.11.2004. The petitioner is not granted such promotion till date as there are no vacancies. Aggrieved by the orders dated 8.7.2007 the petitioner and another filed O.A. 4149 of 2007 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated 24.7.2007 has granted limited relief of stay of reversion to the applicants therein. It is further submitted that as on that date the applicant is holding the substantive post of Assistant Technical Officer and but for the directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 4149 of 2007 he would have been reverted as Junior Technical Officer. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Naveen Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for respondents 3 and 4. As seen from the material available on record, aggrieved by the orders dated 8.7.2007 revising the seniority of the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 in various cadres in which he has been placed below the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner seems to have filed O.A. 4149 of 2007 before the Tribunal. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the same proceedings to show that Ch. Venkata Rayalu i.e. the respondent No.1 herein has been absorbed as Draughtsman Grade III with effect from 31.07.1998 and the 2nd respondent i.e. T. Ramesh has been absorbed as Draughtsman Grade-III with effect from 2.9.1998. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even as per the proceedings dated 8.7.2007 issued by the Office of Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Vijayawada, the petitioner herein was shown as joined on 24.11.1995 in the cadre of Draughtsman Grade-III and the respondents 1 and 2 herein were shown as joined on 3.9.1979 and 12.2.1980 respectively. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 1 and 2 were in some other Unit and they were not in the Unit where the present petitioner was working and in the proceedings dated 8.7.2002 itself they were shown as absorbed as Draughtsmen Grade III w.e.f. 31.7.1998 and 2.9.1998 respectively and therefore the petitioner’s case cannot be brushed aside on the ground that he is junior to respondents 1 and 2. In the light of the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we have considered the material available on record. In view of the proceedings No.CB/S1/EC1/765M dated 8.7.2007 in which the respondents 1 and 2 herein were shown absorbed as Draughtsmen Grade III w.e.f. 31.7.1998 and 2.9.1998 respectively, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner is senior to respondents 1 and 2 in the cadre of Draughtsmen Grade-III, having been joined on 24.11.1995 and as the respondents 1 and 2 were working in some other Unit. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner’s case has to be considered for the post of Technical Officer as per Rules. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observation. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner herein has filed O.A. 4149 of 2007 which is pending before the Tribunal. The parties can agitate their rights in the said O.A. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. S. ASHOK KUMAR, J. Date: 26-03-2008. MVB.