APHC010110622012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [345 7] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.11552 OF 2012 Between: K.S.V. Rajagopal and another …Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Principal Secretary, Revenue Endowments Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Vijay B Paropkari Counsel for the Respondents: 1. Sri V.T.M. Prasad 2. Ld. Govt. Pleader for Endowments. The Court made the following order: 1. No representation for the petitioner. 2. The petitioners are challenging the inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in not considering them to the post -2- W.P. No.11552 of 2012 of Managers in Vuyyuru Group Temples & Choragudi Group of Temples and seeks a consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioners to discharge the functions of Managers in the said group of temples. 3. The petitioners stated that the unofficial respondents were transferred and appointed to superior post in violation of a circular dated 25.01.2012. It is submitted in the pleadings that the first petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the year 1992 at Ranga Nayaka temple, Srirangapuram Village, Krishna District. His services were regularized in the year 1993. The petitioners worked in the post of Junior Assistant till the year 2007. The second petitioner was appointed as a Record Assistant in the year 1990 at Choragudi group of temples at Krishna District and his services were regularized in the year 1992 and he was promoted as Junior Assistant. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the unofficial respondents were transferred and placed above the petitioners in the seniority list and it is also submitted in -3- W.P. No.11552 of 2012 the pleadings that the respondents ought to have promoted the petitioners as Managers instead of promoting the unofficial respondents. The unofficial respondents have been transferred from different temples placed above the petitioners. 5. The respondents 3 to 5 in their counter submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada, prepared a seniority list and finalized the same vide proceedings dated 04.09.1997. The petitioners 1 and 2 were at Sl.No.92 and 85 in the seniority list and the respondents 3 and 5 were at Sl.Nos.74 and 69 respectively. It is further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments prepared the second seniority list and finalized the same on 10.06.2001, wherein petitioners 1 and 2 were stood at Sl.Nos.88 and 81 and the respondents 3 to 5 were placed at Sl.Nos.70, 65 and 52 respectively. 6. The final seniority list prepared in the year 2001 would indicate that the unofficial respondents were seniors to the petitioners. It is also submitted in the counter that the -4- W.P. No.11552 of 2012 Assistant Commissioner Endowments Department, Vijayawada, prepared provisional seniority list on 26.03.2011 and the petitioners were at Sl.No.45 and 68. It is also submitted that the objections to the seniority list were called for and the final seniority list was prepared on 26.03.2011. The respondents placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of B.S.Bajwa v. State of Punjab1 and on the judgment of this Court in the matter of V.Rajamallaiah v. High Court of A.P.2, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court had held that in the matter of seniority, settled matters should not be unsettled after the lapse of considerable time. 7. To unsettle the seniority list, the petitioners should place on record the relevant material by which they were placed lower down in the seniority list and placing evidently juniors to the petitioners above them in the seniority list. No such exercise is demonstrated by the petitioners in the writ petition. 1 (1998) 2 SCC 523 2 2001 (2) ALD 358 -5- W.P. No.11552 of 2012 8. This court, vide order dt.20.04.2012, directed the respondents to consider the representations dt.27.08.2010 and 27.03.2011 within a period of six weeks. The learned Government Pleader submits that the official respondents have also passed subsequent orders in pursuance of the directions of this Court. 9. Recording the same, the writ petition is closed leaving it open for the petitioners to challenge the subsequent proceedings if not challenged earlier. 10. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH. N BV