HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.3185 of 2009 and WRIT PETITION No.21119 of 2009 Date: November 25, 2009 WRIT PETITION No.3185 of 2009 Between: Ganta Suneel. … Petitioner And 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operative (VI) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others. …Respondents * * * WRIT PETITION No.21119 of 2009-11-19 Between: G. Suneel. … Petitioner And 1. Srikakulam District Co-operative Central Bank Limited., rep. by General Manager, Srikakulam and 2 others. …Respondents * * * COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order in view of the commonality of the questions involved in both of these writ petitions and the writ petitioner being the same, in W.P.No.3185 of 2009 on 05.3.2009 notice before admission was ordered. On 24.3.2009 Rule Nisi was issued. 2. Counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. The implead applicant also filed counter-affidavit just on similar lines as that of the counter-affidavit of R-3 and R-4. 3. In W.P.No.21119 of 2009 notice before admission was ordered on 30.9.2009 and Rule Nisi was issued on 09.10.2009. The petitioner also filed W.P.M.P.No.27619 of 2009 praying for permission to amend the writ petition by incorporating the proceedings issued in R.C.No.F5/2009-10/Esst./A1, dated 30.9.2009, subsequent to the filing of the writ petition and the said application was ordered by this Court on 06.10.2009. 4. Counter-affidavits of R-1, R-2 and R-3 also had been filed. Further reply-affidavit had been filed. 5. Heard Sri P.V. Ramana and Smt. A. Padma, learned counsel representing writ petitioner in both these writ petitions and Sri Deepak Misra and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and Smt. N. Anjana Devi Satyanarayana and Sri B.M. Patro, representing respondents. 6. The present writ petitioner Ganta Suneel filed W.P.No.3418 of 2009 and this Court on 21st day of April 2009 made the following order: “This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of Constitution of India declaring the action of the 1st Respondent by issuing proceeding Rc.No.F/2008-2009/Estt./A/dated 7.1.2009 by ignoring the petitioners seniority changing the Roaster promoting 4th Respondent as illegal, improper, and arbitrary and consequently setting aside the proceedings of 1st Respondent and revised the Roaster.” After arguing the case for some time, Smt. A. Padma, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to raise the issue raised in the present writ petition, in Writ Petition No.3185 of 2008. The request of the learned counsel is accepted and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the prayer made. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as withdrawn, WPMP.No.4439 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.” 7. Sri P.V. Ramana and Smt. A. Padma, the counsel representing the writ petitioner in both the writ petitions had taken this Court through the roaster points, the averments made in the respective affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions and further pointed out how the G.Os. relied on cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case and also placed reliance on certain decisions. 8. On the contrary, the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation Sri Deepak Misra, Smt. N. Anjana Devi Satyanarayana and Sri B.M. Patro had taken this Court through the respective counter- affidavits and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitions are to be dismissed. Sri Deepak Misra had placed before this Court the records, the roaster points register and also the file relating to preparation of seniority list of the year 2006- 2007. 9. The writ petitioner filed W.P.No.3185 of 2009 praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the respondents showing the name of the petitioner at Roaster Point No.7 instead of showing at Roaster Point No.2 in the final seniority list of Managers Category-III in Proceedings Rc.No.F.5/2006-07/Estt./A.1, dated 23.3.2007, issued by General Manager, the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Srikakulam; the consequential orders passed by the President, the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Srikakulam, in Rc.No.F/5/2007-08/Estt./Manager, dated 24.9.2007, and the rejection of the review for revision of the seniority by the orders of the General Manager, the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Srikakulam, in Rc.No.F.5/2008-09/Estt./A.1, dated 01.9.2008, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also the clarifications issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2, Social Welfare (S.W.ROR.1) Department, dated 09.01.2004, and G.O.Ms.No.18, Social Welfare (S.W.ROR.1) Department, dated 17.2.2005, for considering the case of the male S.C. candidate wherever S.C. woman candidate is not available and consequentially declare that the petitioner is entitled for Roaster Point No.2 for fixation of seniority in the post of Category-III Manager with all consequential benefits and pass such other suitable orders. 10. It is the case of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.3185 of 2009 that the respondent issued recruitment notification for the post of Category- III Manager in Eenadu Daily newspaper on 10.8.1996 notifying 6 posts, one vacancy for S.C, one vacancy for B.C-A, one vacancy for women and 3 vacancies for others. After due process, the petitioner was appointed on 17.3.1999 and appointment letter was issued by the District Manager to that effect. In fact, selection process for filling up the 6 posts was started in the year 1984 itself. The respondents are maintaining roaster in respect of 6 vacancies notified as hereunder. Point No.1 for OC Point No.2 for SC Point No.3 for OC Point No.4 for B.C-A Point No.5 for OC and Point No.6 for women 11. Further it is averred that after his appointment also roaster was maintained by the Central Bank Limited, Srikakulam, and as per the maintenance of Roaster, the name of the petitioner was shown at point No.2 meant for S.C. The respondent had not prepared any seniority list in the cadre of Category-III Managers for the period of ten years. As per the G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 01.2.1977 the reservation meant for S.Cs and S.Ts were followed while issuing recruitment notification. Recruitment notification does not provide point No.2 reserved for S.C. women, since as on that date the rules which are in existence does not provide such reservation. It is only after issuing the said notification women reservation was implemented in G.O.Ms.No.65 which was issued on 15.2.1977. The respondent issued provisional seniority list on 27.2.2007 showing the petitioner at Roaster Point No.7 keeping Roaster Point No.2 vacant as per the G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 01.02.1977 and was communicated to the petitioner. 12. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that when the writ petitioner received provisional seniority list showing his name at Roaster Point No.7 instead of showing at Roaster Point No.2, the petitioner filed a detailed objection quoting the G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 09.01.2004. Since the petitioner is the only S.C. male candidate available and since there is no woman candidate is available and since roaster does not reserve the said point for women, the case of the petitioner shall be considered keeping him at point No.2 meant for S.C. 13. It is also his case that without considering the objections of the petitioner in right perspective, the said provisional list was confirmed by issuing the final seniority list dated 23.3.2007 and the respondent had also passed a separate order against petitioner’s objection dated 22.3.2007. As against the said orders, the petitioner filed an appeal to the President, District Co-operative Central Bank, and the same was rejected by a non-speaking order dated 24.9.2007. Against the said orders also, the petitioner filed application for reviewing the seniority list to the Chairman/Appellate Authority, District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, dated 23.11.2007. The petitioner also made application to the Joint Registrar/District Co-operative Officer, Srikakulam. Thereafter, Joint Registrar/District Co-operative Officer communicated a letter, dated 19.2.2008, stating that the final seniority list prepared by the General Manager was valid and there was no need to give direction to the General Manager to revise the roaster point. Thus, in such circumstances the said writ petition was filed. 14. In the counter-affidavit filed by R-3 and R-4 in W.P.No.3185 of 2009 it is averred that the main writ petition W.P.No.3185 of 2009 is filed by Ganta Sunil seeking the reliefs aforesaid and the same is itself liable to be dismissed, as the relief sought is lacking clarity apart from vague and uncertain and, hence, not sustainable in law. The prayer suffers from the following laches. 1. The multiplicity of causes of action that arose on several dates ranging from the year 2004 to 2007 issued by various authorities from time to time were jumbled up together in a single relief sought in this wit petition and, hence, cannot be granted particularly in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. In view of the fact that different rights are conferred on different individuals under several proceedings namely (1) dated 09.02.2004 (2) dated 17.02.2005, (3) dated 23.3.2007, (4) dated 24.9.2007 and (5) final proceeding dated 01.9.2008, a single writ petition interdicting all the aforesaid five proceedings is not maintainable in law. 3. The main writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that several persons affected by the relief sought for in this writ petition had not been impleaded as party respondents. 4. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches as the rights of seniority conferred on several employees on several dates cannot be disturbed after a lapse of several years. 5. The claim of the petitioner in the wit petition is vague and based on imaginary rights, which are not conferred on him. 6. In all the proceedings challenged in the writ petition, there was no arbitrariness in the matter of employment or any discrimination shown between the candidates and there is no infringement of Articles 14, 16 and 21 as alleged in the writ petition. 15. The ground of laches also had been averred. Further it is averred that this respondent issued a recruitment notification on 10.8.1996 in Eenadu newspaper calling for applications for appointment of 6 Managers under direct recruitment. By the date of issue of the said notification, G.O.Ms.No.41 Women’s Development & Child Welfare (Estt.) Department, dated 01.8.1996, was in force in which the Government implemented reservation to women to an extent of 33 1/3 % in each category of O.C, BC-A, BC-B, BC-C, BC-D, SC and ST by allotting roaster points. After completing due process, the petitioner was appointed as Manager in the Bank and he joined as such on 19.3.1999. Respondent No.4 finalized the seniority list of the six direct recruit Managers on 27.02.2007 by allotting roaster point No.7 to the petitioner taking into consideration, the G.O.Ms.No.65, General Administration (SER-D) Department, dated 15.02.1997. 16. It is also stated that though the said G.O.Ms.No.65 was issued on 15.02.1997, it came into effect with retrospective effect from 01.8.1996. The petitioner filed objections dated 12.3.2007 on the said seniority list for fixation of his roaster point at point No.7, but this respondent confirmed the roaster point No.7 for the petitioner in conformity with G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 15.02.1997, and also set aside the objections filed by the petitioner on 22.3.2007. In G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 15.02.1997 the following are the roaster points followed with effect from 01.8.1996. (1) O.C. - Woman (2) S.C. - Woman (3) O.C. - (4) B.C-A - Woman (5) O.C. - (6) O.C. - Woman (7) S.C. - (8) S.T. - Woman (9) O.C. - As so on In G.O.Ms.No.65 it has been expressly stated that “notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or special rules or ad-hoc rules that posts which are reserved exclusively for being filled by women, they shall be filled by women only”. This G.O. is still in force and it has overriding effect over the Government orders issued prior to that date. 17. It was averred in para 8 of the counter-affidavit that as per the said G.O.Ms.No.65, the roaster point No.2 had been exclusively reserved for S.C. woman. Therefore, the petitioner cannot request for fixation of his roaster point at point No.2 depriving one S.C. woman candidate permanently from being appointed under the quota (roaster point No.2) meant for S.C. woman on the pretext that S.C. woman had been recruited in future. 18. It is also averred in para 9 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner, being annoyed with the rejection of his objection dated 12.03.2007 by the respondent, filed an appeal on 13.4.2007 before the President/respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 did not consider his appeal on the plea that the seniority list prepared by respondent No.4 was in harmony with the Government orders in force. The petitioner having not satisfied with the orders of respondent No.3 submitted a representation, dated 27.11.2007 before the Joint Registrar/District Co- operative Officer, Srikakulam, namely respondent No.5 for correcting his roaster point as 2 in the place of 7. Respondent No.5, after perusing the relevant material furnished by the petitioner and respondent No.4, informed the petitioner through his letter Rc.No.2735/2007-C, dated 19.02.2008 that the General Manager/respondent No.4 had correctly fixed his roaster point in terms of G.O.Ms.no.65, dated 15.02.1997, and as such there was no need to give any instructions/directions to respondent No.4 to revise the roaster point. 19. Further it is sated that the petitioner having been aggrieved, approached the A.P. State Commission for SCs and STs, Hyderabad, seeking redressal of his grievance and the said Commission called for the report from respondent No.4 bank and necessary reports had been submitted on 12.11.2007 and also on 02.6.2008. 20. It is also averred in para 11 that while the said matter was pending before the A.P. State Commission for SCs & STs, the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 17.9.2008 to the next Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Officer, Srikakulam, without revealing the fact that the matter relating to the revision of his roaster point had been disposed of by the District Cooperative Officer. If the petitioner feels that justice was not done, he has to approach the next higher authority to the Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Officer, Srikakulam, but not the same authority. But, the Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Registrar, Srikakulam, respondent No.5, disposed of the representation of the petitioner by orders dated 03.12.2008 observing that as the same matter of alleged irregular fixation of seniority of the petitioner is pending before A.P. State SC and ST Commission, Hyderabad, it is not prudent to intervene in the matter. 21. It is also stated that the District Co-operative Central Bank’s Dalit S.C., S.T., B.C., Employees Welfare Association, through their letter dated 29.11.2006 issued under Right to Information Act had stated that all the District Co-operative Central Banks should follow the G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 15.02.1997, regarding roaster system in recruitment policy. 22. It is also averred that earlier the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Central Bank Employees’ Association in their letter, dated 28.5.2004, addressed to the General Managers of the District Co-operative Central Banks in Andhra Pradesh State, clarified that the rule of reservation, finalization of inter se seniority in the cases of direct recruitees, the rule of reservation as laid down in the G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 15.02.1997, has to be followed. 23. It is averred in para 14 of the counter-affidavit that it is pertinent to note that earlier in G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 9.01.2004, Section 12 facilitates conversion of roaster point of women, however, the G.O.Ms.No.12, issued framing policy of providing rule of reservation in promotions in favour of SC and ST. But, the present seniority was finalized as per G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 15.02.1997 (with effect from 01.8.1996) which is still in force for fixation of roaster points. For promotions G.O.Ms.No.21 is to be followed. G.O.Ms.No.2 is the modification of G.O.Ms.No.21. 24. As per G.O.Ms.No.2, in para 6, it was clearly stated that Rule of Reservation in promotions in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, shall be implemented in promotions to all categories of posts, in all services, whose total cadre strength is more than five. Hence, considering conversion for promotion cannot be considered, as the strength of the Assistant General Manager is below five i.e., 2, and the rule of reservation in promotions is not applicable. 25. G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 17.02.2005, is only an amendment to the G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 09.01.2004, and it also reads rule of reservations for promotions of SC and STs to be followed as per Rule 22 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules for direct recruitment. The Bank had followed the rules as in direct recruitment as per G.O.Ms.No.65 which is in force for fixation of roaster points for direct recruitment and the said G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 09.01.2004, and G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 17.02.2005, are not clarifications of the G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 15.02.1997. 26. It is also averred in para 17 that the petitioner along with one S.V. Satyanarayana Rao another direct recruiter Manager of the bank, had filed a separate writ petition W.P.No.3418 of 2009 assailing the final seniority list prepared by the bank and the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the counsel for the petitioner for withdrawal. On one side the petitioner had been filing representations to the administration and on the other side filing writ petitions before this Court making false allegations and swear into the affidavit stating that “he had not filed any writ petition or representation before any court or forum for the same relief, hence, there is no pendency before any court”, which is false and misleading and on this ground alone the main writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 27. Thus, specific stand had been taken that the bank had not violated any statutory rules or Government Orders in the matter of finalization of seniority list of No. III category employees (Managers) and, hence, dismissal of the writ petition had been prayed for. 28. The other counter-affidavit also being on similar lines need not be further elaborated. 29. The relief prayed for initially and the amended relief in W.P.No.21119 of 2009 already had been referred to supra. The copy of proceedings and the copy of notice issued by respondent No.1 for conducting board meeting and the copy of final seniority list of Managers category III also had been placed before this Court. 30. It is averred in W.P.No.21119 of 2009 that the petitioner was appointed as Manager on 10.3.1999 by direct recruitment in category III Cooperative Central Bank, Kottabomali Branch, Srikakulam District, and he is eligible for promotion for the post of Assistant General Manager Category II. Since his appointment till 2007 ban was imposed on promotions and after lifting ban in the year 2007, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.1 to furnish seniority list of category III of Managers. But, respondent No.1, by issuing proceeding vide Rc.No.5/2006-07/Estt./A, dated 22.3.2007, furnished provisional seniority list, called for objections, wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No.7 in stead of serial No.2. The petitioner also submitted his objections for showing his seniority and requested them to revise the seniority list, as his name was shown at serial No.7. But, respondent No.2 rejected the objections of the petitioner dated 22.3.2007 and confirmed the seniority list. The petitioner carried the matter by way of appeal to the Chairman, respondent No.1, and the first respondent also rejected the same on 24.9.2007 confirming the order of respondent No.2. 31. Further it is stated that when the petitioner submitted an application dated 03.10.2007 to respondent No.1 under Right to Information Act for existing roaster system, they furnished a copy wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No.2, 3rd respondent’s name was shown at serial No.6. As per the furnished roaster point system for promotion from Category III to Category II, the first person comes to O.C. candidate; second person comes to S.C. candidate; third person comes to O.C. candidate; 4th person comes to BC (A); 5th person comes to O.C. candidate and 6th person comes to OC (women). Respondent No.3 comes under 6th person, whereas the petitioner comes under second person as per the roaster. By deviating the entire seniority list as well as roaster, respondent No.1 issued proceedings R.C.No.F/2008-09/Esst./A1, dated 07.01.2009, ignoring the petitioner’s seniority and by promoting the 3rd respondent, who is the junior most candidate in the seniority list as furnished by respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3418 of 2009 challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 07.01.2009. Respondent No.1 filed counter-affidavit stating that the proceedings of the President dated 07.01.2009 are misread, as the petitioner assumed that respondent No.3 had been promoted, whereas it is only a posting issued for officiating as Assistant General Manager. It is an officiating posting to facilitate the day-to-day administration, till a regular promotion is effected to fill up the post of Assistant General Manager on regular basis. Accordingly, the petitioner had withdrawn the said writ petition. 32. It is also averred that while the matters stood thus, on 22.9.2009, respondent No.1 issued proceeding RC.No.1/Board Meeting/2009-10 stating that they are going to conduct a Board Meeting to pass a resolution and incorporated in the Agenda as item No.16, that as per the legal opinion given by the standing counsel if respondent No.3 is promoted as Assistant General Manager, no future legal complications will arise. Therefore, respondent No.3 was promoted as Assistant General Manager on regular basis. Now, the proposal of the first respondent to pass a resolution and filling up with the same candidate on regular basis is illegal, improper and arbitrary. As on today, the same roaster is continuing. The board meeting will be held on 30.9.2009 to promote respondent No.3 on regular basis. In such circumstances, the said writ petition had been filed. 33. The counter-affidavit filed by R-3 is on similar lines as that of the counter-affidavit filed by R-1 and R-2. It is stated at the outset that the cause title of the writ petition requires amendment, in so far as it relates to respondents 1 and 2, the District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, No.M-210, Srikakulam, described in the cause title as the General Manager of the said bank. The petitioner is aware that there is no post of General Manager for the said bank at present and that “The Chief Executive Officer” of the bank has to be impleaded in the place of “The General Manager”. 34. Further it is stated that the main writ petition itself is liable to be dismissed as the relief sought for declaring the action of the first respondent in issuing proceeding RC.No.1/Board Meeting/2009-10, dated 22.9.2009, by circulating the notice to the Board of Directors that they are going to conduct a board meeting and passing a resolution proposing to promote respondent No.3 as Assistant General Manager on regular basis which was incorporated in the Agenda as an item No.16 is all illegal, improper and arbitrary and consequently setting aside the proceedings in respect of item No.6 of the Agenda dated 22.9.2009 and declare the petitioner is eligible for the post of Assistant General Manager as per roaster and seniority. The said prayer had been amended by orders in W.P.M.P.No.27620 of 2009, dated 09.10.2009, to the effect that permitting the petitioner “to amend writ petition No.21119 of 2009 by incorporating the proceedings issued by the respondent vide No.R.C.No.F/5/2009/10/Estt./A1, dated 30.9.2009, subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. 35. It is also stated that the said proceedings dated 30.9.2009 had been issued by the President of the bank in pursuance of the resolution of the board, No.17, dated 30.9.2009. Hence, the President of the DCC Bank is a proper and necessary party to the main writ petition. As the relief as amended is only challenging the said proceedings No.R.C.No.F5/2009/10/Estt./A1, dated 30.9.2009, issued by the President, the writ petition itself is not maintainable in the absence of impleading the said President as party respondent to the main wit petition. This apart, the