S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against a judgment dated 7-10-1999 in O. A. No. 4213 of 1998 passed by A. P. Administrative tribunal whereby and whereunder the original application filed by the petitioner herein questioning an order of the 3rd respondent as contained in Memo dated 21-4-1998 whereby and whereunder inter se seniority between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents 4 to 9 was determined, had been dismissed. 1-A. The petitioner joined as Record assistant on 11-7-1979. His services were regularised subsequently. He was promoted as Junior Assistant in 1982 and as senior Assistant in 1992. On or about 22-7-1997 the 7th respondent before the tribunal submitted a representation to the effect that he had been assigned seniority at s. No. 27 of the revised seniority list of junior Assistants wherein the applicant was shown at S. No. 20 and another person by name Sardhar Khan applicant in o. A. NO. 4462 of 1998 was shown at S. No. 22 although he was not qualified therefor at the relevant time as he did not have the requisite five years experience in the lower category prescribed under sub-rule 14 (b) of rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial service Rules, 1996.

( 2 ) A question was raised as regards delay in filing the said representation. The 3rd respondent called for a clarification from the 2nd respondent who by Memo dated 16-9-1997 clarified that the respective seniority positions of the parties can be determined in terms of sub-rule (14) of rule 3 of the Rules pursuant whereto order dated 18-10-1997 was issued revising the dates of regularisation of various persons including the petitioner herein and tthe said sardar Khan by reason whereof they became juniors

( 3 ) THE A. P, Administrative Tribunal having been approached directed that a representation be filed by the petitioners which. may be considered by the respondents. By reason of an order dated 21-4-1998 the 3rd respondent held that as per sub-rule 14 (b) of Rule 3 of the said rules, Record Assistants were necessarily required to put in five years of service for consideration for promotion as Junior assistant and, therefore, the 7th respondent should be promoted as Senior Assistant with effect from the datel on which Sardar khan and the applicant were promoted, with all attendant benefits. The plea of delay was not acceded to.

( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in V. Subba Rao v. Secy, to Government and others held that as one has to put in a minimum period of five years service for being considered for promotion and as the petitioner herein did not complete the said period, the order of promotion passed in his favour was irregular and the same being contrary to rules, the said Sardar Khan and the petitipnef herein could not be held to be seniors.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised a short question in support of this application. According to the learned Counsel, seniority having been fixed at several stages, the same could not have been reopened. Strong reliance in this connection is placed on b, Bucha Reddy v. V. Bhagyamma and others, sri J. R. Manohar Rao appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents on the other hand submitted that the completion of five years service is a must for the purpose of grant of promotion and unless a person having the requisite qualification therefor is promoted, his seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of his joining. The learned counsel would contend that the appointment of the petitioner is per se illegal and the period of unqualified service cannot be counted towards seniority.

( 6 ) KEEPING in view the rival contehtions as noticed hereinbefore the principal question which arises for consideration is as to whether the seniority list can be directed to be reopened after such a long delay.

( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the inter se seniority of the respective candidates had been fixed after due notice. Objections

Click Here to Read the rest of this document