Alla Sambi Reddy vs Sri Seetharamachandraswamy Vari Devasthanam and Others

S. Ananda Reddy, J.—The petitioner is assailing the action of the respondent - Executive Officer, Sri Seetharamachandra Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Bhadrachalam in fixing the seniority of the 4th respondent above the petitioner.

It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the 1st respondent institution on 3-9-1970 and the 4th respondent was appointed in the same cadre on 15-2-1972. Later the petitioner was promoted as Sr. Assistant (U.D.C) on 18-8-1983 while the 4th respondent was promoted as Sr. Assistant on 29-8-1986. Thereafter, the 4th respondent was promoted as Superintendent on 6-10-1989 while the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent on 22-1-1990. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said action, made representations to respondents 1 to 3. In fact, a communication was also issued by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent calling for the information why the petitioner was overlooked and his junior, 4th respondent was promoted. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent furnished the information to the Government regarding the service particulars of both the petitioner and the 4th respondent. As no further action was taken, the petitioner has approached this Court.

At the time of hearing, it is represented that though the petitioner''s representation with reference to the inter se seniority between the petitioner and the 4th respondent is still pending, the case of the 4th respondent was considered for further promotion and he was even further promoted as Asst. Commissioner which is assailed by the petitioner in a separate proceedings before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. In the present proceedings, we are concerned only with reference to the seniority and the promotion of the petitioner and the 4th respondent to the post of Superintendent under the 1st respondent institution.

At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice a decision of this Court in W.P. 4638 of 1996 dated 10-6-1997 (D. Veeraiah v. Commissioner for Endowments and Ors.) wherein it was held that with reference to an institution, there should be only one seniority list and not with reference to different organisations even in the same institution. Therefore it was stated that it'' the seniority list is prepared as per the date of appointment and further promotions, the petitioner is senior to the 4th respondent and the petitioner ought to have been promoted as Superintendent before the 4th respondent was promoted to that post.

In the counter filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that the petitioner was working in the transport wing of the establishment while the 4th respondent was working in the general establishment wing and therefore they were treated as separate wings and the seniority was also considered separately.

The said action of the 1st respondent is not in conformity with the judgment of this Court referred to above. The above contention of the 1st respondent is against the view expressed by this Court in the above judgment. Therefore, there is no justification for the 1st respondent to maintain two separate seniority lists with reference to the same institution.

Further, as per the rules framed under G.O.Ms. No. 1478 dated 17-11-1996, the Executive Officer is the appointing authority and the seniority of the employees also has to be decided by him only as an appointing authority/However, in the present case, as there were representations by the petitioner to the respondents 2 and 3, the Government has already called for information about the service particulars of both the petitioner and 4th respondent for consideration and it is also shown that the information was furnished by the 2nd respondent to the Government.

Therefore, the 3rd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders either deciding the seniority on its own or to direct the Executive Officer to decide the seniority of the petitioner and the 4th respondent and if the petitioner is found to be the senior, his seniority shall be restored in the post of Superintendent. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions.