THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.6099 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 09.07.2009 passed in O.A.No.2859 of 2004 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows; The first respondent herein was appointed on compassionate grounds as contingent employee in the office of the Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Markapuram. Thereafter, considering the representation dated 06.03.1999 of the first respondent, the petitioner issued proceedings dated 22.03.1999 stating that he was wrongly treated as contingent employee instead of Class IV employee and rectifying the said mistake, his pay was fixed from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 15.12.1983. Based on the service rendered by the first respondent as Class IV employee, the petitioner promoted him as Record Assistant vide proceedings dated 02.09.1997. Since his entire service was not taken into account for the purpose of fixing the seniority for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant and other consequential benefits, the first respondent made a representation dated 26.02.2003 to the petitioner and as no action was taken thereon, he filed O.A.No.5759 of 2003 before the Tribunal, which in turn disposed of the same directing the petitioner to consider the said representation. In compliance of the same, the petitioner while considering the said representation rejected vide proceedings dated 22.11.2003 stating that there are no Government instructions to count the seniority from the date of initial appointment for the purpose of promotion as Junior Assistant and the first respondent was already promoted as Record Assistant counting the seniority from the date of his initial appointment as Class IV employee. Aggrieved by the same, he filed O.A.No.2859 of 2004 before the Tribunal, which in turn set aside the said proceedings directing the petitioner to consider the case of the first respondent for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant taking into consideration his seniority as Class IV employee from the date of his initial appointment i.e., from 15.12.1983. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj contended that as per the combined seniority list and the rules in force, the first respondent cannot be promoted as Junior Assistant as he was already promoted as Record Assistant counting the seniority from the date of his initial appointment as Class IV employee and that the Tribunal erred in allowing the O.A. 5. Learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the other Class IV Employees, who were appointed subsequent to the first respondent, were promoted as Junior Assistants counting their seniority from the date of their first appointment, but the petitioner has not considered the case of the first respondent and the same is illegal and arbitrary. 6. From a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner in the counter filed in O.A.No.2859 of 2004 admitted that the first respondent was given scale of pay from the date of his appointment i.e., 15.12.1983 treating him as regular Class IV employee vide proceedings dated 22.03.1999 and he was promoted as Record Assistant based on the service rendered as Class IV employee vide proceedings dated 02.09.1997. When once the services of the first respondent were regularized from the date of his appointment i.e., 15.12.1983 and promoted as Record Assistant counting his seniority from the date of his initial appointment, denial of further promotion as Junior Assistant on the ground that there are no Government instructions to count the seniority from the date of initial appointment for the purpose of promotion as Junior Assistant, is untenable. Therefore, we find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 7. The Writ Petition fails, and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:23.03.2010 sj