THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.NO.31921 of 2011 Between: Md.Abdul Munaf (Rtd. Goods Guard), S/o Md.Ramthuymiya R/o D.NO.30-26-3, 7th Cross road, Chittugunta, Viyawada, Krishna District. . .Petitioner And 1.Union of India represented. by its Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Viyawada, Krishna District and another. .. Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.NO.31921 of 2011 ORDER: (Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The unsuccessful applicant in O.A.No.675 of 2009 assails the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad dated 02.06.2011, aggrieved by the rejection of his application. The applicant after initial engagement as a casual labour in the Engineering Department, Senior Divisional Personal Manager’s office, South Central Railway, Vijayawada, was promoted as Goods Guard in 1995 and joined duty on 10.07.1995 on completion of training. In October 2003 the respondents prepared the seniority list of Goods Guards and thereafter constituted a selection committee for considering promotions to the next higher category i.e., Senior Goods Guards, in the pay scale of Rs.5000- 8000. On 25.01.2006 a provisional select list comprising 44 names of persons, including that of the applicant, was drawn up whereat the applicant figures at Sl.No.16. On 14.02.2006 the respondents finalized the provisional select list and issued orders of appointment. In the meanwhile, the applicant retired on superannuation on 31.01.2006. Contending that since the provisional select list of Goods Guards eligible to be promoted as Senior Goods Guards was approved by the competent authority on 25.01.2006 he should have been promoted as Senior Goods Guard prior to his retirement on 31.01.2006, the petitioner filed the O.A before the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal rightly concluded that as the orders of appointment were issued on 14.02.2006 after the applicant’s retirement on superannuation on 31.01.2006, the applicant is not entitled for the relief claimed. The appreciation of the relevant facts and application of appropriate legal principles to the identified facts by the learned Tribunal is impeccable warranting no interference under judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits in the writ petition and accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission, but in the circumstances of the case without costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM _______________________________________ JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 05.12.2011 Gsn