V. V. S. , RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE proliferation of seniority disputes in service law is characterized with perpetuation. As observed by the supreme Court in Dr. G. Manila Siddaiah v. Dr. T. G. Siddapparadhya the canker of litigiousness has spread even to a sphere of life where discipline should check ambition concerning personal preferment despite the expectation that a Government servant is expected to bear with fortitude and reconcile himself to his lot suppressing disappointment when he finds a co-worker raised to a position which he himself aspired after. (See also D. Hanmanth Rao v. State of a. P. ).

( 2 ) THIS preface to this judgment is, however, not to subject the lis to microscopic judicial scrutiny nor to turn away the petitioners at the threshold. In these petitions under Article 226 of the constitution of India the question relates to correctness of a Government Order purporting to revise the dates of regularisation of the petitioners and consequent downward review of their positions in the seniority lists of Deputy executive Engineers (DEEs ). We are concerned with only with such seniority lists relating to Zones V, VI and VII. The questions raised are common in all the writ petitions and therefore one common judgment is appropriate. FACTS OF THE CASE:

( 3 ) ALL these applications seek judicial review of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judicial Member of Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal ) dated 19-4-2000 (hereinafter called the impugned judgment ) in O. A. No. 1357 of 2000 and batch consisting in all ten cases. While noticing the facts, we have not only relied on the pleadings before the Tribunal and before this court, but also relied on voluminous documents placed on record to trace the history of litigation which ultimately culminated in the issuance of G. O. Ms. No. 72, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Ser-II) Department dt. 6-5-2000 (hereinafter called the impugned order ).

( 4 ) THE A. P. Roads and Buildings engineering Service is governed by Special rules known as A. P. Roads and Buildings engineering Service Rules (hereinafter called the Special Rules ) issued in. G. O. Ms. No. 1023. P. W. D. . dt. 27-6-1967. These Rules were repealed by new set of rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 103 dated 17-8-1996. But, reference is made only to the rules issued in 1967. According to these rules the post of DEE is to be filled by direct recruitment as well as by recruitment by promotion/transfer of Assistant Executive engineers (AEEs) and Supervisors [now designated as Assistant Engineers (AEs)] or draftsmen (Special Grade) or Draftsmen (Grade-I) in the ratio of 37% for direct recruitment and 62% for other method. Till 1975 there used to be a combined seniority list for the entire State and the same was followed while considering promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (EE ). Since 1972, however, the subject of inter se seniority among direct recruits and promotees has been constantly and continuously is being litigated in this Court, in the Supreme Court as well as the Tribunal (after it was constituted in 1975 in accordance with Article 371-D of the constitution of India ). Finally in a series of cases involving question of inter se seniority disputes between direct recruits and promotees, to which a reference is made infra the Supreme Court directed not to disturb the dates of regularisation or the seniority of promotee Engineers upto 31-12-1982 and take necessary steps for filling up the direct recruitment quota with reference to the vacancies which existed as on 31-12-1982 and thereafter. A Contempt case was filed before the Supreme Court alleging gross violation of the order passed by the Supreme Court in W. P. No. 17165 of 1984 in K. Siva Reddy v. State of A. P. . The supreme Court while dismissing the contempt Cases by order dt. 7-10-1993 laid down certain principles inter alia directing that the direct recruits and promotees, who were appointed in the vacancies upt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document