IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6374 of 2000 Between: T.Vijaya Kumar, S/o. T.Ramaiah, R/o. Church Compound, Vakadu, Nellor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad-20 2 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Regional Manager, Nellor Region, Nellore District. 3 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Depot Manager, Vakadu, Nellore District. 4 Sri Sk. Peer Rahaman, A.P.S.R.T.C., Rapur., Nellore District. 5 Sri M.Chenchaiah, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vakadu, Nellore 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the proc.No.P9/255(12)/99-RM(NLR) DT. 11-12-1999, issued by the 2nd respondent, promoting in so far as 4th and 5th respondent to the post of Leading Hand from the post of Mechanic Grade-I/Grade-II, who are juniors to the petitioner, ignoring the claim of petitioner to the post of Leading Hand as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution to promote the petitioner to the post o Leading Hand on part with his juniors with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice; and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents:MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned proceedings bearing No.P9/255(12)/99-RM(NLR), dated 16.12.1999 issued by respondent No.2 promoting respondent Nos.4 and 5 from the post of Mechanic Grade-I/Grade-II to the post of Leading Hand, ignoring his claim. The petitioner along with respondent Nos.4 and 5 was appointed as Mechanic Grade-II with effect from 13.11.1979 in APSRTC, Ongole Division (when Nellore was part of Ongole Division). After formation of Nellore Division in 1987, options were called for from the employees of Nellore Division and a seniority list was prepared in the category of Mechanic Grade-II. In the said list, the petitioner was shown as senior to respondent Nos.4 and 5. In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that though he was senior to respondent Nos.4 and 5, without considering his case for promotion, respondent No.2 promoted them to the posts of Leading Hand by the impugned proceedings. After recruitment in the initial cadre of Mechanic Grade-II, respondent Nos.4 and 5 were promoted to the posts of Mechanic Grade- I. So far as the post of Mechanic Grade-I is concerned, as per the Recruitment Regulations, in a unit of four vacancies, second vacancy shall be filled by promotion by selection of Mechanic Grade-I or Grade-II who has been directly recruited from ITI candidates and the remaining 3 posts are to be filled by promotion by selection of other Mechanic Grade- II candidates. Respondent No.4, who did ITI in Diesel Mechanic, was promoted under direct recruitment as Mechanic Grade-I and so also, respondent No.5 was promoted as Mechanic Grade-I against the second vacancy. In the seniority list prepared for the post of Mechanic Grade-I, respondent No.4 was shown at Sl.No.38, petitioner was shown at Sl.No.39 and respondent No.5 was shown at Sl.No.40. The further promotions to the post of Leading Hand is concerned, it is categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that the same is a selection post and the Selection Committee, while making selections to the post of Leading Hand, preferred respondent Nos.4 and 5 and passed the following remarks against the petitioner. “The petitioner was removed in a case of insubordination of serious nature and involved in number of other irregular maintenance of absenteeism cases. Hence, “not selected”.” From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that Leading Hand is a selection post, but not a promotion post. On the mere ground that he was senior to respondents 4 and 5 in the initial cadre of Mechanic Grade-II, the petitioner has questioned the impugned promotions. Though the petitioner was senior most in the initial cadre, he was not senior to respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the feeder category of Mechanic Grade-I. To effect promotions to the post of Leading Hand, mere seniority alone is not the criterion and it is always for the Members of the Selection Committee to take adversary remarks into consideration while selecting the candidates. Inasmuch as the petitioner was not selected in view of the adverse entries recorded in his service register, it cannot be said that the impugned proceedings promoting respondent Nos.4 and 5 to the posts of Leading Hand are illegal. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd MARCH, 2009. kvni