The petitioner, in this writ petition seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings in Memo.No.101771/Endts.III/A1/92-3 dt. 31.03.1994 confirming the orders of the second respondents in his Proceedings Roc.No.B2/17411/84 dated 23.01.1992 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to fix his seniority over and above respondents 3 and 4 in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer (Electrical) and also Divisional Engineer (Electrical) and give all the benefits of pay, allowances, promotion etc.

2. The petitioner’s brief case is that he passed L.E.E. Diploma in the year 1964 from S.V.Polytechnic, Tirupathi, and that he was selected for the post of Supervisor (Electrical) in the second respondent Devasthanams in the year 1968 and he was ranking first in the order of merit. Then, he passed B.Tech., (Electrical) Examination from S.V. University, Tirupati in the year 1978. He was declared as approved probationer in the cadre of Supervisor (Electrical) and was also confirmed in the post of Supervisor (Electrical) with effect from 01.04.1970.

3. A vacancy for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), which is now re-designated as Deputy Executive Engineer fell vacant in the year 1978. Then the second respondent Devasthanam, by resolution No.5432 dated 17.11.1978 prepared and selected a panel of 2 names, namely, K.Peera Reddy and the petitioner as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). At that time, the name of one Hara Gopala Sharma, whose name was at Sl.No.2 in the list, was not considered. Subsequently, said K.Peera Reddy was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). When K.Peera Reddy went on leave, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). However, when K.Peera Reddy joined the service, the petitioner was reverted for want of vacancy.

4. As the matter stood thus, in the year 1983, two vacancies for the post of Assistant Engineer, which is now re-designated as Deputy Executive Engineer, arose. Then the second respondent Devasthanams, by memo in Roc No.TLI/28976/80 dated 23.08.1982 communicated tentative seniority list showing the respondents 3 and 4 as seniors to the petitioner. Then the petitioner filed objections and in spite of objections and representations of the petitioner, the respondents appointed the third and the fourth respondents are Deputy Executive Engineer (Electrical) even before confirming the final seniority, by order dated 30.01.1984. Then the second respondent confirmed the tentative seniority list by order dated 17.07.1984. Then the petitioner was also promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer (Electrical) by proceedings dated 01.02.1984. Challenging the action of the second respondent in promoting respondents 3 and 4 by placing them above him in the seniority list, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the said appeal was dismissed by order dated 23.01.1992. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner again preferred appeal before the first respondent, but however, the first respondent also rejected the appeal by order dated 31.03.1994.

5. The main submission of Sri A.V.Sivaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly when a vacancy arose, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer, but while preparing the seniority list, respondents 1 and 2 have illegally promoted respondents 3 and 4 before the petitioner was promoted by placing them above the petitioner in the seniority list.

6. Per contra, Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned standing counsel for the second respondent Devasthanams submitted that since respondents 3 and 4 obtained B.Tech (Electrical) degree prior to the petitioner, they were promoted before the petitioner and thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contentions of the learned counsel for the second respondent Devasthanams and the counter filed by him in this writ petition cannot be taken into consideration unde