C VENKATA SUBBAIAH v. AP POWER GENERATION CORPORATION AP GENCO
WP/21278/2024 · 2026-09-06
Balaji Medamalli
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 9830 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 9830 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010412822024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
WRIT PETITION NO: 21278 OF 2024
Between:
1. C VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/o.C. Rama Subbaiah, Aged about 59 years Occ Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) Employee ID No. 1062258 CHP/RTPP, Kalamalla Kadapa District. ...Petitioner AND
1. AP POWER GENERATION CORPORATION AP GENCO, Viduyut Soudha Gunadala, Vijayawada Rep by its Chief General Manager Admn, IS AND ERP. 2. The Managing Director, AP GENCO, Viduyut Soudha Gunadala, Vijayawada. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary Energy Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District. 4.
Sri S M Shareef, S/o. and age not known Occ Deputy Executive Engineer O AND M Shift, RTP Kalamalla Kadapa District ...Respondents 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring the action on the part of the respondents in improperly fixing the seniority and rejecting the claim of the petitioner for rectification of the placement in the seniority list in the cadre of 2 Junior Engineer (Mechanical) by not computing the seniority with reference to the date regularization and not maintaining the lien in the parent unit i.e. SRBHES/ Srisailam as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the rules and being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the to fix the seniority of the petitioner at appropriate place by maintaining the lien in the parent unit i.e. SRBHES/ Srisailam in the cadre of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) for the purpose of conferring notional date of promotion in the higher on par with may of regu- respondents cadre posts of Assistant Engineer and Deputy Executive Engineer the juniors and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 Pleased direct the 1ST respondent to consider claim of the petitioner for fixation of the placement in the seniority list at appropriate place in the cadre of Junior Engineer for the purpose of consideration for notional date of promotion in the higher cadre posts of Assistant Engineer and Dep uty Executive Engineer on par with jun iors by considering the representation dated 21.09.2023 submitted by the pe titioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to direct the respondents to keep one post of Deputy Executive Engineer (Upgraded post) as vacant out of the 88 numbers of Deputy Executive Engineer posts upgraded pursuant to G.0.0.No: 280/CGM(ADM,IS&ERP)/2025, dated 07.02.2025 and consequently Fill this final adjudication of the main issue raised in the writ petition and pass 3 Counsel for the Petitioner:
T BALAJI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondents:K.KRISHNABUSHAN CHOWDARY SC For APGENCO The Court made the following order: 4 O R D E R 1) The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring the action on the part of the respondents in improperly fixing the seniority and rejecting the claim of the petitioner for rectification of the placement in the seniority list in the cadre of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) by not computing the seniority with reference to the date of regularization and not maintaining the lien in the parent unit i.e. SRBHES/Srisailam as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the rules and being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner at appropriate place by maintaining the lien in the parent unit i.e. SRBHES/Srisailam in the cadre of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) for the purpose of conferring notional date of promotion in the higher cadre posts of Assistant Engineer and Deputy Executive Engineer on par with the juniors and to pass……” 2) The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondents have improperly determined his seniority, resulting in the promotion of his juniors over him. Petitioner has accordingly challenged the Proceedings, dated 09.04.1998, whereby his seniority was reassessed to his detriment. 3) The case of the Petitioner is that, while considering his request for transfer to Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project (RTTP), the 1st Respondent-Corporation imposed a condition that he would have to forgo his seniority and lien in the Srisailam Circle and be placed at the bottom of the seniority list among the existing probationers/approved probationers in RTPP.
5 4) The Petitioner is now seeking reconsideration of his seniority on the ground that the condition imposed by the 1st Respondent- Corporation vide proceedings, dated 26.06.1999, requiring him to forgo his seniority and be placed at the bottom of the seniority list among the existing probationers/approved probationers, was unreasonable. However, having voluntarily agreed to the terms and conditions of the transfer and having accepted the consequential fixation of his seniority at the bottom of the said category, Petitioner is estopped from subsequently contending that such fixation was erroneous or otherwise improper. In any event, Petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the said condition or seek reopening of the seniority position after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 27 years, particularly when the seniority position had attained finality and third-party rights have intervened. 5) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
Date: 07.09.2026 SM/BAK
6
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
WRIT PETITION No. 21278 of 2024 Dated: 07.09.2026
SM/BAK