IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14165 of 1999 Between: Y. Upender Reddy, S/o Narsireddy Zilla Parishad, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboonnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department Secretariat, Hyderabad-500 022. 2 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. 3 Y.Sagareswara Rao S/o. Subbaiah Zilla Parishad, Vizianagaram, Vizanagaram District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the Tribunal, dt.12-5-99 in O.A.No.3508/95 set aside the same and also declare G.O.Ms.No.2845/I3/CPR/92, dt.28-6-95 and G.O.Ms.No.429, dated:6-12-96 as illegal, bad, arbitrary and contrary to the rules by holding that the 3rd Respondent is not entitled for any seniority for the service rendered prior to his appointment as Mandal Development Officer and consequently treat him as having been appointed as Mandal Development Officer only with effect from 30th June,1990 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.V.V.P.Rao The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14165 of 1999 ORAL ORDER: (per C.V. RAMULU,J) This Writ Petition is directed against an Order dated 12-5-1999 made in O.A.No.3508 of 1995 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, whereunder the claim of the petitioner for seniority over and above the 3rd respondent was rejected. It appears, on the abolition of the system of Block Development Offices and introduction of Mandal Development Offices, all the Block Development Officers were redesignated as Mandal Development Officers. Further, the Managers, who were eligible for promotion to the post of Block Development Officer, were also absorbed as Mandal Development Officers. In spite of this exercise, more than 400 vacancies in the cadre of M.D.O. were available, in view of creation of large number of Mandals in the State. Therefore, it appears, on a representation made by the Extension Officers of various Departments working in the erstwhile Block Development Offices, attached to the Mandal Development Offices, made a representation for considering their case for being posted as MDOs. It appears, an ad hoc rule was framed in the year 1989 enabling the Extension Officers to be eligible for being appointed as DOs on condition that they should be successful in the written test and interview to be conducted in that regard. According to the petitioner, himself and respondent No.3 were selected and appointed as MDOs in the month of April,1990. However, it appears, the 3rd respondent filed O.A.No.38256 of 1991 before the Tribunal without impleading the affected parties, seeking seniority from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 1971 (as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon). The said O.A. was disposed of on 1-9-1993 declaring that the 3rd respondent is entitled to the benefit of Rule 33(c) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules,1962 (old) and aggrieved thereby, an S.L.P. was filed by the State Government. The Apex Court dismissed the said S.L.P. and also the review petition. Thereafter, petitioner was given notice and he filed objections for placing the 3rd respondent’s name above him in the seniority list of MDOs. However, the objection raised by the petitioner was rejected and the 3rd respondent was placed above the petitioner. As a consequence, 3rd respondent was promoted upto the cadre of Deputy Commissioner of Panchayat Raj, whereas, the petitioner could not get promotion. Aggrieved by the Order of giving seniority to the 3rd respondent in the category of MDO with effect from 3-7-1973 i.e. the date from which he has been withdrawn from the control and subordination of BDO, the petitioner filed the present O.A.No.3508 of 1993. The Tribunal, however, while applying Rule 33(c) (old) { Rule 33(d) new } of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules rejected the claim of the petitioner holding that the seniority of an Officer shall be counted from the date of his initial appointment. In this regard, Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that Rule 33(c) (as existed then) or Rule 33(d) as on today i.e. A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules,1996 does not apply to the facts of the present case in view of the fact that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent are not borne from the same service. Respondent No.3 was initially appointed in the Animal Husbandry Department, whereas petitioner was appointed directly in the Panchayat Raj Department. Simply because the ad hoc rules were framed in 1989 enabling the Extension Officers to be eligible for being appointed as MDOs on passing of examination etc., that itself would not give a right for reckoning the seniority of the 3rd respondent from the date of his initial appointment in the Animal Husbandry Department. Animal Husbandry Department is altogether a different Department from the Panchayat Raj Department. Therefore, fixing of the seniority of the 3rd respondent was not proper. Be that as it may, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the 3rd respondent has retired from service. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was also promoted further to the post of Deputy Commissioner. In view of the above, we are not inclined to go into the other merits of the case, particularly, considering seniority of 3rd respondent, who is no more in service as per Rule 33(c) or Rule 33(d) of the Rules. Leaving this question open, the Writ Petition is closed. __________ _____________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) 10th June, 2008 _____________ (C.V. RAMULU,J) prk