IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 648 of 2004 Between: 1 K.Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o late K.Chandraiah District Employment Officer, Nalgonda. 2 P.Rama Reddy, s/o late P.Narayana Reddy District Employment Officer, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. 3 K.Sathaiah, S/o Muthaiah Junior Employment Officer, O/o Regional Employment Exchange, Anjaiah Bhavan, R.T.C.X Roads, Hyderabad. 4 A.Malla Reddy, S/o A.Raji Reddy, Regional Employment Officer, Anjaiah Bhavan, RTC X roads, (P&E), Hyderabad. 5 M.A.Jalaluddin, s/o late M.A.Rajack Regional Employment Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District-530 002. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Labour Employment Training & Factories Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Employment & Training, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Burgula Ramakrishna Rao Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3 P.Lingaiah, Working as assistant Accounts Officer, O/o Directorate of Employment and Training, A.P., Hyderabad. 4 The Director, Treasuries & Accounts, Govt., of A.P., Tilaknagar, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of "certiorari" calling for the records relating to order dated 29-12-2003 in O.A.No.4515/2003 with VMA No.773/2003 passed by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and set aside the same as unjust and without any basis and declare the Memo No.280/Emp.A1/2002-2, dated 29-11-2002 issued by the 1st respondent and Proceedings No.G3/G7/1152/2002 dated 27-06-2003 issued by the 2nd respondent giving notional promotion in the category of Junior Employment Officer to the 3rd respondent with effect from 22- 04-1992 without giving any notice to the effected parties, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, against the principles of natural justice and without any basis and contrary to service Rules and guidelines issued by the Government, and set aside them and further direct the respondents-1 & 2 not to effect further promotion to the 3rd respondent Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RATNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: M/sH.SRINIVASA RAO&VIJAYALAKSHMI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.648 of 2004 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Ramulu) This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to order dated 29.12.2003 made in O.A.No.4515 of 2003 with V.M.A.No.773 of 2003 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Petitioners are applicants in the O.A. They filed the above O.A. challenging the proceedings in Memo No.280/Emp.A1/2002-2 dated 29.11.2001 of the first respondent and the consequential proceedings issued by the second respondent in Procs.No.G3/G7/1152/2002 dated 27.6.2003. In view of certain representations made by third respondent, he was given notional seniority in the category of Junior Employment Officer (JEO) from the date of promotion of his junior Y.Visweswara Rao i.e. 22.4.1992 vide proceedings of the first respondent dated 29.11.2001. The grievance of the petitioners/applicants was that third respondent, who belongs to Zone-V, was placed at serial No.114 in the integrated seniority list of JEOs which was prepared in the year 1999 and he never challenged the said seniority list. According to the petitioners/applicants, in view of the proceedings dated 29.11.2001, the integrated seniority list, which was prepared in the year 1999 will be disturbed and third respondent would be placed above them. With this apprehension, they have filed the present O.A. challenging the proceedings dated 29.11.2001 and the consequential proceedings dated 27.6.2003. Insofar as restoring the seniority of third respondent in Zone-V in the category of JEO with effect from 22.4.1992 is concerned, petitioners are nothing to do with the same. Admittedly, petitioners hails from Zone- VI and the zonal seniority of Zone-V in respect of third respondent and one Y.Visweswara Rao was pending when the integrated seniority list was prepared in the year 1999. Under those circumstances, third respondent could not have raised objection since his seniority in Zone-V was not finalized and it was finalized only by way of proceedings dated 29.11.2001 vis-à-vis Y.Visweswara Rao. Now the contention of the petitioners is that, may be, third respondent was entitled to be given notional seniority along with Y.Visweswara Rao with effect from 22.4.1992, but the same should not disturb the integrated seniority list which attained finality in the year 1999. This argument appears to be not in consonance with the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly from 23.4.1992, the third respondent has been making representations even as per the counter filed by the Government and the said representations were finally decided on 29.11.2002. In the meanwhile, may be, third respondent was shown at serial No.114 i.e. below the petitioners/applicants in the integrated seniority list of 1999, but that does not mean that pending rights of the third respondent vis-à- vis Y.Visweswara Rao could not have been decided by the authorities. When the matter was challenged, the Tribunal while upholding the impugned orders, held that giving notional promotion in the category of JEO to third respondent is legal and directed to issue notices to the applicants and other affected parties before alteration of seniority list in the higher categories i.e. District Employment Officer and Regional Employment Officer. Accordingly, the O.A. was disposed of. We are of the considered opinion that since the rights of third respondent vis-à-vis Y.Visweswara Rao was pending before the Government and attained finality only in the year 2002 and restoration of his seniority was rightly held to be legal by the Tribunal, the Tribunal rightly taken a decision to order notices to the affected persons. We are not inclined to interfere with such an order passed by the Tribunal protecting the interest of all the parties, particularly petitioners herein since they are entitled for notice before revising the integrated seniority list of 1999. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 1.7.2008 DA THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.648 of 2004 (Order of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Ramulu) 1.7.2008