APHC010370062021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 842/2021 Between: 1. T VALLI RAO, S/O. LATE VENKOJI RAO, AGED 54 YEARS, SENIOR ASSISTANT, 0/0. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HLC(LOC) DIVISION, HLC COLONY, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, I AND CAD DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT .. 2. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, (ADMN) WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, RAMAVARAPUPADU, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPT., TBPHLC(CIRCLE), HOSPET ROAD, ANANTHPAURAMU DISTRICT.. 4. P VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O. AND AGE NOT KNOWN, SENIOR ASSISTANT, 0/0. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DC DIVISION, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): To call for the Records pertaining to Memo No. EC2/E.12/638M dated 1.6.2017 and Memo NO. RC/ENC/AW/1/2/17031236/2017 dated 26.4.2017 of the 2nd Respondent and the Memo No. EC2/E12/991M dated 29.62009 of the 3,d Respondent and hold the action on the part of the 1st Respondent In not considering the claim of the applicant regarding erroneous fixation of seniority 2 of the applicant and the 4h Respondent in the cadre of Junior Assistant by rejecting the claim by referring to rule 23 and Govt. Circular Memo No 57759/Ser-A/2004- 1 dated 25.4.2004 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to rules and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the claim of the applicants for proper determination of the applicant vis a vis the seniority of the 4th Respondent in the cadre of Junior Assistant and review and revision of seniority in the Promotional category of Senior Assistant on such determination of seniority in terms of Rule 33(a) of State and Subordinate Service Rules by taking the merit list in the recruitment and the dates of appointment as Junior Assistant Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V MAHESWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri S.Harinath Reddy, leaned counsel representing Sri V.Maheswar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Sarath Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III. 2. Impugning the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide Memo No.EC2/E.12/638M dated 01.06.2017, rejecting the claim of the petitioner to restore the seniority, in terms of the Rule 23 of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules and the Government Circular Memo No.57759/Ser-A/2004-1 dated 25.04.2004, the above writ petition was filed. 3. The petitioner initially filed O.A.No.1442 of 2017 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Upon abolition of the Tribunal, the OA was transferred to this Court and was numbered as W.P.(AT).No.842 of 2021. 4. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant and joined duty on 29.08.1987 and later promoted to the post of Senior Assistant vide 3 Proceedings No.EC2/E6/2078M dated 05.11.1999. One Smt. P.Vijayalakshmi, was initially appointed as a Typist and reported duty on 25.08.1987 and later converted as Junior Assistant in terms of G.O.ms.No.503 GAD dated 19.10.1987 on her request and reported for duty as Junior Assistant on 09.11.1998. Subsequently, she was promoted as Senior Assistant vide Proceedings No.EC2/E6/1067M dated 17.05.1999. 5. Both the petitioner and the 4th respondent were selected to Group-IV services through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) vide proceedings Rc.No.5644/86/GTV, dated 17.08.1987. 6. The final seniority list was prepared as per the Rule 23 of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules and the same was never challenged by the petitioner. Though, the 4th respondent was shown as senior to the petitioner in the final seniority list, without challenging the final seniority list, the petitioner made a representation seeking restoration of the seniority after nine years. That representation was rejected by the proceedings impugned. 7. As seen from the material available on record, in fact, the petitioner’s request to restore the seniority was rejected earlier vide Memo No.EC2/12/991M dated 29.06.2009. The petitioner did not challenge the said proceedings. Later, the petitioner, as stated supra, made another representation seeking restoration of the seniority. By the proceedings impugned, the authority rejected the claim in terms of the Rule 23 of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules and the Government Circular Memo No.57759/Ser-A/2004-1 dated 25.04.2004. 8. Unless the petitioner challenges the final seniority list prepared in terms of the Rule 23 of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, the question of claiming restoration of seniority list above the 4th respondent does not arise. In fact, the 3rd respondent considered all these aspects and passed the order impugned. 4 9. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 06.02.2026 SNI 5 195 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION (AT) No.842 OF 2021 Dated: 06.02.2026 SNI