THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.16566 of 2005 & 24868 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Both the writ petitions are filed by the same individual. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The petitioner joined the erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board as Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.) on 28.11.1981. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.) on 11.04.2001. After reorganization of the Electricity Board, the Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (for short ‘the Company’) promoted the petitioner on ad hoc basis as Junior Accounts Officer (J.A.O.) on 27.03.2004 and his services in that post were regularised on 26.04.2005. Alleging that the promotion of the petitioner as J.A.O. was irregular, since he did not complete five years of service in the post of U.D.C., the Superintending Engineer of the Company issued proceedings, dated 16.07.2005, reverting the petitioner to the post of U.D.C. That order is challenged in W.P.No.16566 of 2005. An integrated seniority list of J.A.Os. was published by the Company on 17.09.2009. The name of the petitioner did not figure in that. W.P.No.24868 of 2009 is filed ventilating that grievance. The petitioner contends that there existed a provision for relaxation of qualifications and the very fact that he was promoted as J.A.O. on 27.03.2004 even before he completed five years of service as U.D.C. discloses that the relaxation is deemed to have been given. He further contends that the non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the integrated seniority list of J.A.Os. was untenable in law. The respondents filed counter-affidavits opposing the writ petitions. They submit that admittedly, the petitioner did not possess the requisite length of service before he was promoted as J.A.O. and taking the same into account, the order of reversion was passed. As regards non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the integrated seniority list, it is stated that the continuance of the petitioner is on the strength of the interim orders and in that view of the matter, he was not included. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was promoted as U.D.C. from the post of L.D.C. on 11.04.2001. The Service Regulations provide that an U.D.C. must put in five years of service before he is considered for promotion to the post of J.A.O. Obviously, on account of non- availability of eligible candidates, the Company promoted the petitioner as J.A.O. even before he completed five years of service as U.D.C. The petitioner cannot be blamed for that. It may be true that there is a provision in the Service Regulations that enables the Company to relax the conditions or qualifications. All the same, the petitioner cannot claim that such relaxation is deemed to have been granted. It is only when specific orders are passed by the appointing authority that the relaxation can be said to have been granted. Since no specific relaxation was granted in favour of the petitioner, his promotion as J.A.O. on 27.03.2004 is obviously contrary to the Service Regulations. At the same time, the Company could have regularized the services notionally from the date on which the petitioner completed five years of service after promotion to the post of U.D.C. instead of reverting him. Even now, such a course can be adopted. Hence, W.P.No.16566 of 2005 is allowed setting aside the order impugned therein, subject to the condition that the services of the petitioner as J.A.O. shall be deemed to have been regularized with effect from the date on which he completed five years of service as U.D.C. namely 12.04.2006. W.P.No.24868 of 2009 is disposed of directing that the name of the petitioner shall be included in the integrated seniority list of J.A.Os. below the person, who has been regularized as J.A.O. before 12.04.2006. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 16.11.2010. kdl