THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.14202 OF 2009 Dt.05.10.2009 Between: G.Venkata Ramana Reddy ………….Petitioner Vs The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, Mukkaramjahi Road, Hyderabad, represented by its Vice Chairman & Housing Commissioner. ……………..Respondent The court made the following: O R D E R: THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.14202 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner herein is working as Assistant Executive Engineer in A.P. Housing Board. It is not in dispute that he was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer on 30.12.1992 along with eleven others and in the provisional seniority list in the cadre of the Assistant Executive Engineer published on 26.04.2002, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.3. However no further steps were taken and long thereafter a fresh provisional seniority list was published on 28.4.2009 inviting objections from all the parties. Having found that his name has been shown at Sl.No.19 in the provisional seniority list, dated 28.04.2009, contrary to the earlier provisional seniority list dated 26.04.2002 where he was at Sl.No.3, the petitioner submitted his objections on 8.5.2009. It is alleged that without considering his objections, the respondents are proceeding to make promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer. Hence, the present writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is explained that after receiving the objections from all the concerned employees, the seniority list will be finalised and the promotions will be made by placing before the Departmental Promotion Committee as per the Rules. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondents in preparing the seniority list in the cadre of the Assistant Executive Engineers in terms of Rule 33(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 is erroneous and therefore the seniority list dated 28.4.2009 is liable to be set aside. According to the learned counsel, Rule 33 (a) is applicable and the respondents ought to have prepared the seniority list in terms of Rule 33(a). Admittedly the petitioner has already submitted his objections on 8.5.2009 and the same are yet to be considered by the respondents. Hence, it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion on the rival claims made by the parties including the applicability of appropriate provision of law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the respondents to consider the objections raised by the petitioner as well as the employees, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that until the objections are considered and the final seniority list is published, the respondents shall not make any promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 5.10.2009 tjs