IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2509 OF 2003 Between: C. Yadagiri and others ..... PETITIONERS AND Food Corporation of India and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2509 OF 2003 ORDER: The petitioners were, initially, appointed in Class - IV category (Watchman/Peon) in the Food Corporation of India (for short, “the Corporation”), in the year 1971. They were promoted as Assistant Grade - III in the year 1975 and as Assistant Grade - II vide orders, dated 26.11.1990, with effect from 1978. This was followed by further promotion of the petitioners to the post of Assistant Grade - I through order, dated 03.03.1999, with effect from 08.08.1988. The appointment to the post of Assistant Grade - III is through promotion (20%) and direct recruitment (80%). Some disputes arose as to the seniority to be assigned to direct recruitees on the one hand, and promotees on the other hand. The Kerala High Court rendered a Judgment on 16.02.1998 in O.P.No.10972 of 1990 in this regard. It was directed that Regulation 16 (3) shall be strictly followed in the matter of preparation of seniority list and promotion to higher posts. Stating to be as a measure of implementation of the Judgment of the Kerala High Court, the Zonal Office of the Corporation issued office order, dated 13.11.2002, directing that eleven Assistant Grade – I officials, including the petitioners herein are liable to be reverted to the post of Assistant Grade - II. Consequential orders were also issued by the respective regional heads. In case of the petitioners, the Senior Regional Manager, Hyderabad, 3rd respondent herein, issued proceedings, dated 22.11.2002, reverting them to the posts of Assistant Grade - II. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioners contend that the exercise undertaken by the respondents does not accord with the relevant provisions of law and the judgment of the Supreme Court. A reference is also made to the subsequent Judgment rendered by the Kerala High Court in O.P.No.1031 of 2000. The respondents filed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the impugned proceedings were issued strictly in compliance with the directions issued by the Kerala High Court. Heard Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the respondents. A perusal of the orders, impugned herein, clearly demonstrates that they were issued in compliance with the directions of the Kerala High Court. The relevant Judgment is not placed before this Court. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by any directions issued by the Kerala High Court, they have to canvass their relief elsewhere. On the other hand, if they feel that the impugned proceedings do not accord with the Judgment in O.P.No.10972 of 1990, they can make a representation and point out the anomalies. There is no reason to believe that the respondents do not take the same into account. Even now such an exercise can be undertaken. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners: a) either to canvass their grievance vis-à-vis Judgment, dated 16.12.1998, rendered by the Kerala High Court in O.P.No.10972 of 1990 before proper forum or; b) to make a representation to the respondents pointing out the anomalies, if any, in the matter of implementation. In case such a representation is made, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 27, 2010 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2509 OF 2003 December 27, 2010