IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FRIST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 235 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/02/2008 in WP NO: 26602 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: S. Venkata Ramanarsaiah, S/o. Papaiah, the Office of the APCO Divisional Marketing Office, Station Road, Warangal, Warangal District. ... APPELLANTS AND 1) A. Brahmanandam, Kadapa. 2) S. Sammaiah S/o. Kanakaiah Abids, Hyderabad. 3) The A.P. State Handloom Weavers Coop. Society Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.V.MALLIK Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: MR. B.G. RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR.CH.JAGANNADHA RAO The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) Admit. Looking to the facts of the case and in pursuance of the request made by the learned advocates, the appeal is finally heard today. In this appeal, interim order dated 01.02.2008 passed in WPMP No.1589 of 2008 and WPMP No.34723 of 2007 and WVMP No.339 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.26602 of 2007 has been challenged. The question, which has been involved in the writ petition, is with regard to seniority list of officers of Category-V. It is not in dispute that a seniority list of officers of Category-V has been finalized on 06.06.2006. The said list has not been so far modified, but there is a move to make some changes in the said seniority list. As the seniority list dated 06.06.2006 is in force, as on today, if any promotion is to be given to the higher post of Procurement Officer, the same has to be considered. In view of the afore-stated position, the impugned order is modified to the effect that as and when any person is to be considered for giving promotion to the post of Procurement Officer, the seniority list dated 06.06.2006 shall be taken into consideration. Needless to say that if any changes are to be made in the afore- stated seniority list, it would be in accordance with law. In the light of the impugned order modified to the extent stated supra, the appeal is disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ April 01, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs