APHC010595562013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 31726/2013 Between: 1. Y. LEELA KUMAR,, S/O Y.ESWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT, O/O AAO/ERO (TOWN), APCPDCL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION OF A P LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR MINT COMPOUND, HYDERABAD. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HRD, APCPDCL, MINT COMPOUND, HYDERABAD. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OPERATIONS, APCPDCL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. T SURI BABU, SON OF AND AGE NOT KNOWN, WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT, O/O AAO/ERO, APCPDCL, NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declare the impugned memo no.SE/0/KNL/PO/Adm/S3/856/97, dt.21-04-1997, in so far as treating petitioner as junior to the 4th respondent and memo No.SE /O/KNL/ DE-TECH /PO/JAO /Adm /S3 /D.No.2683/13, dt.24-10-2013 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same ii. consequently direct the respondents to treat petitioner as senior to the 4th respondent in the cadre of LD Clerks and promote him as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 31-07-2005 duly treating the petitioner as senior to the 4th respondent and grant the petitioner other consequential benefits including consideration of his case for being promoted as JAO. IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 39426 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's name for being promoted as JAO ahead of the 4th respondent in the ensuring DPC to be held on 21-11- 2013 or on any other subsequent date, pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL 2. K UDAYA SRI 3. The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court to declare the memo dated 21.04.1997, treating the petitioner as junior to the 4th respondent, as illegal and a consequential direction to treat the petitioner as senior to the 4th respondent in the cadre of lower division clerks and to promote him as Senior Assistant with effect from 31.07.2005. 2. The respondents have filed a counter duly intimating that the tentative seniority list has been published and objections have been called for. The objections raised by the petitioner could not be considered for placing the petitioner above the 4th respondent. It is further stated in the counter that the 4th respondent was placed above the petitioner and seniority list was prepared vide memo dated 08.10.1992 which was communicated to the petitioner and the 4th respondent vide memo dated 22.05.1996 and a subsequent memo dated 21.04.1997. 3. It is also stated in the counter that the tentative seniority list is prepared and communicated to the employees including the petitioner and the 4th respondent almost every year and no objections were received from the petitioner till the year 2012. The petitioner is attempting to review the seniority list after lapse of 20 years, which cannot be considered by this Court on account of the willful inaction on the part of the petitioner in raising objections or challenging the seniority list in the year 1992 itself. 4. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, on written instructions submits that the seniority list was revised in pursuance of the DPC conducted on 21.11.2013 and the petitioner is now promoted to the cadre of Junior Accounts Officer. However, insofar as seniority to the 4th respondent is concerned, he is placed above the petitioner and in spite of several opportunities the petitioner did not raise objections for the seniority list published and circulated. Seniority list cannot be reopened after lapse of a considerably long period. 5. Considering the same, this Court is not inclined to unsettled a seniority position after lapse of 20 years, as the same would have multiple ramifications insofar as service of the employees of the respondents in that particular cadre. On these considerations, this Court is not inclined to interfere. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 06.04.2026 SR