1 APHC010271082018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 12192/2018 Between: B.v.n.appa Rao ...PETITIONER AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A G SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…..to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the office order No.P2/255(14)/2017- RM .VSP dated 24.02.2018 promoting the Juniors-Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to the post of Assistant Depot Clerk, by rejecting to rectify the errors in the seniority is arbitrary, unjust, contrary to Service Regulations and Recruitment Regulations, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14, Article 16 and Article 21 of Constitution on India, set aside the same including the proceedings No.P1/752(1)/2018-RM:VSP dated 27.02.2018 and consequently direct the 2 Respondents to update the seniority as per Service Regulations by rectifying the errors and consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Depot Clerk on par with Juniors - Respondent Nos.4 to 6 with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play and pass such other order or orders…...” 2. Heard Sri A.G.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent Corporation on 01.08.1992 and has been working since then as Conductor. Learned counsel would submit that the seniority of the petitioner was not fixed properly. So, his juniors are promoted. Learned counsel would further submit that the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Conductor to the Assistant Depot Clerk is not a selection post. It is only by seniority. Learned counsel would further submit that the seniority list is not updated since 2002. But suddenly it was done in the year 2018. The provisional seniority list is issued on 09.11.2020. Learned counsel would further submit that the revised final seniority list has been issued on 21.03.2022 giving due seniority to the petitioner and he was shown at Serial No.31 in the said list, as 4th candidate eligible for promotion, whereas Serial Nos.1 to 6 are not on roles might have been retired. Learned counsel finally submits that the respondents 4 to 6 in the present petition, who were joined in the year 1993, were shown at Serial Nos.36, 40 and 41 in the earlier seniority list which is prepared in the year 2002, whereas the petitioner was 3 shown at Serial No.116, though he joined in the year 1992. The seniority list is erroneously prepared. Learned counsel prays to allow the petition by directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on par with his juniors, who were promoted as Assistant Depot Clerks in the year 2018. 4. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that by the time of filing the counter in this matter, the revised final seniority list is not obtained. Now, by virtue of revised final seniority list, the petitioner was shown at Serial No.31. The Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, admittedly the seniority list has been prepared in the year 2002. On the face of it, it is erroneous and irregular, since the petitioner who is a senior joined in the Department in the year 1992, was shown at Serial No.116. Whereas, the respondents 4 to 6 were shown at Serial Nos.36, 40 and 41 respectively, though they entered in service in the year 1993. That apart, the respondents 4 to 6 were promoted in the year 2018, whereas the petitioner could not get promotion by virtue of the seniority list which is prepared long back and it is not updated as admitted in the counter. It is also not in dispute that the seniority list is kept with respondent No.3. The petitioner could not make his objections meanwhile. On the representation of the petitioner raising his objections regarding the seniority, the provisional seniority list is issued on 09.11.2020. Whereas, the revised final seniority for 4 the batches 1987 to 1994, was issued on 21.03.2022. There is a force in the argument that the juniors of the petitioner were promoted earlier in the year 2018, whereas the petitioner is waiting for his turn. Admittedly, the post of Assistant Depot Clerk is not a selection post. So, it goes by seniority. Hence, the action of the respondents promoting the respondents 4 to 6 before the petitioner in the year 2018, is not sustainable. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for his promotion even in the year 2018. 6. In that view, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Assistant Depot Clerk by virtue of his seniority on par with his juniors by giving notional seniority and the petitioner is entitled for monetary benefits from the date of his joining in the new post, if he is found eligible otherwise. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 26.03.2025 ARR 5 487 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 12192/2018 Dt.26.03.2025 ARR