G. YETHIRAJULU. ,J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single judge of this Court in W. P. No. 25875 of 1995.

( 2 ) THE appellants are respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioners 1 to 13 are respondents 1 to 13 and respondents 3 to 6 of the writ petition are respondents 14 to 17 of this appeal. The writ petition was filed praying to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring Item No. 3 of Resolution No. 92/91 dated 31-5-1991 prescribing marks for the selection of Class I Senior scale Officers, awarding marks as contrary to Regulation No. 4 (b) of a. P. S. R. T. C. Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 ( the service regulations for brevity) read with Item No. 3 of Class I Senior Scale service of Section (b) of Annexure A of APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) regulations, 1966 ( the recruitment regulations for brevity) and for setting aside the selection list dated 11-4-1995 and the appointments of respondents 3 to 6 as Divisional Managers as illegal and void.

( 3 ) THE writ petitioners are direct recruits. They were appointed as assistant Mechanical Engineers. Their names are included in the seniority list of Assistant Mechanical Engineers dated 10-11-1994 at S. Nos. 17, 22, 27, 28, 30 to 37 and 39 respectively. Respondents 3 and 4 are Assistant mechanical Engineers and their names are found at S. Nos. 3 and 7 and the names of respondents 5 and 6 are found at S. Nos. 40 and 41 of the said seniority list which was prepared as per the direction of a Division Bench of this Court in P. Komaraian v. A. Yegneswarudu and ors. and confirmed by the Supreme Court. For Assistant Traffic Managers and Assistant mechanical Engineers, the common promotional posts are of Divisional manager of Class I Senior Scale. According to Regulation 4 (b) (i) of the service regulations, the promotion shall be made to the next cadre on the basis of merit and seniority being considered only where merit is approximately equal. As per Regulation No. 4 (b) (ii), the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates would be entitled to be promoted to the next cadre only on the basis of seniority and suitability and the principle of merit does not apply to their case. The cases of petitioners are rejected for next promotion against respondents 3 to 6 on account of application of the method evolved on the basis of Item No. 3 of the resolution No. 92/91 dated 31-5-1991. Therefore, the Resolution is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india.

( 4 ) THE main grievance of the petitioners is that the A. P. State Road transport Corporation ( the Corporation for brevity) has taken into account the seniority as the basis for selection. Though the posts of divisional Managers are the posts for selection on merit only and the seniority is required to be considered only when the merit is approximately equal and not otherwise. According to Item No. 3 of the resolution No. 92/91, out of 100 marks, 70 marks were allotted for merit rating and managerial ability, as reflected in the merit rating report, 20 marks were assigned for length of service in the feeder post and 10 marks for letters of appreciation or rewards given for exemplary/meritorious work. The writ petitioners contended that the service regulations prohibit the principle of seniority for these posts and awarding of 10 marks on the basis of merit certificates issued by the Chairman of the corporation who is not competent to issue such certificates is illegal and arbitrary.

( 5 ) PETITIONERS 3 and 4 who belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe contended that in order to hold that they are found not suitable, adverse remarks have to be communicated to them, but no such adverse remarks were communicated to them, therefore, their non-selection is also illegal. The concerned authorities are supposed to maintain a combined seniority list of the officers in the feeder post. But, they pre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document