These three writ petitions are disposed of through a common order since an identical issue falls for consideration in all the three cases, involving the same respondents and similarly placed petitioners, who are the employees working in the first respondent entity. The facts in WP No. 25251 of 2010 are taken as the basis for deciding the issue involved in the writ petitions, namely whether the seniority would get affected if an employee (Assistant Engineer) could not pass the Accounts Test within two years from the date of joining the service. Accordingly, the submissions made in the said writ petition by the respective learned Counsel have been taken into consideration to decide the issue, inasmuch as the learned Counsel in the other two writ petitions have adopted the same arguments, apart from making supplementary arguments in support of what has been urged in WP No. 25251 of 2010.

WP No. 25251 of 2010

2. Through the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is an employee working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the first respondent Devasthanam, assails the Board Resolution No. 85, dated 23.5.2009 and Circular No. Roc. No. TL 14819/2008, dated 7.6.2009, whereby and whereunder the petitioner's seniority has been determined.

Petitioner's Plea:

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, who is an Engineering Graduate, joined the services of the first respondent on 15.12.1999 as an Assistant Executive Engineer and got her services regularized with effect from 15.12.1999. Having her probation commenced on the said date, the petitioner passed the Departmental Test, namely PWD Account Test, in June 2002 stated to have been within the probation period. As such, her probation was also declared as successfully completed by 27.12.2001, through Memo No.L.Dis. No. TL1/18427, dated 10.12.2008.

4. After a lapse of about eight years, the first respondent authorities published a tentative Seniority List through Proceedings dated 2.1.2009 showing the petitioner at Serial No. 90, just below one Sri M. Sreenivasulu, in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 1060, Revenue (Endowments-1A), dated 24.10.1989 (the "Service Rules" for brevity). In course of time, the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C) held its meeting on 26.2.2009 and selected 13 Assistant Executive Engineers for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, the next higher cadre, keeping the petitioner at Serial No. 12 out of 13 selected candidates. In fact, 11 out of 13 candidates were given promotion in due course.

5. When the petitioner was hoping for her turn of promotion, through Resolution No. 85, dated 23.5.2009, another provisional Seniority List of Assistant Executive Engineers was prepared and published by the first respondent through proceedings dated 3.6.2009, ostensibly invoking Rule 24(c) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962 (as was in force upto 14.10.1996) and Rule 16(h) of A.P.S.S. Rules, 1966 (with effect from 15.10.1996), calling for objections, if any, to be filed on or before 4.6.1999, i.e., one day. In the said list, the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 100, whereas Mr. M. Sreenivasulu, who earlier stood immediately above her, was shown at Serial No. 93. Though sufficient time was not given to file objections, the petitioner filed her objections on 4.6.2009 and urged the authorities to revise the panel restoring her seniority. Disagreeing with the objections of the petitioner, the first respondent published what is termed as the final Seniority List, through circular dated 7.6.2009. Assailing the said Seniority List, the present writ petition has come to be filed.

Respondent’s Response :

6. The first respondent has filed its counter-affidavit traversing all the allegations and averments made by the petitioner. Incidentally, though the respondent Nos. 2 to 7, who have been brought on record subsequently, were serviced notice, as has been evident from the record, none has chosen to appear before the Court to contest the claim of the petitioner. It