1. The petitioners, Sub-Engineers, in this writ petition have ventilated their grievance that while facilitating promotion to the post of Additional Assistant Engineer, the Power Distribution Company ('the respondent Company', for brevity) reckoned the entire length of service of the promotees from the initial appointment rather than from the date when those employees were borne in the feeder category, i.e., Sub Engineers. In other words, by taking the entire length of service of those employees who were appointed sub-engineers by transfer, the respondents made the direct recruitees lose out on account of alleged lack of seniority, though they have been holding the post of Sub Engineers as direct recruitees for a longer period than those promotees who had been appointed by transfer. The facts in brief are that all the petitioners, possessing Engineering Diplomas in Electrical and Electronics Engineering (DEEE), were appointed Sub Engineers on different dates between 2000 and 2004. Insofar as the petitioners' career prospects are concerned, their employer, the respondent Company, has two types of services: Engineering and Non-engineering. As per the service regulations of the 1st respondent Company, all non-engineering staff can enter into engineering service only after acquiring a Diploma in Engineering. In course of time, the 2nd respondent Company, through a memo dated 04.10.2008, asked its Chief Engineers/Superintending Engineers to furnish service particulars of Sub Engineers who are working under their control having completed eight years of service with a view to considering them for further promotion to the post of Additional Assistant Engineers. Though the names of the persons who were appointed Sub Engineers in 2005 and 2006 were considered, the petitioners were left out, despite their appointment prior to that time. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court, having failed to persuade the authorities to consider their cases.

2. Sri D.V. Seetha Rama Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. N. Ashwani Kumar, Counsel for the Petitioners, has submitted that the post of Sub Engineer is the feeder category to the post of Additional Assistant Engineer. Insofar as the post of Sub-Engineer is concerned, it has got two modes of recruitment. Elaborating further, the learned Senior Counsel has stated that one mode is by way of direct recruitment and another is recruitment by transfer. Those who are working in non-engineering category, on acquiring the necessary qualification with requisite experience, could as well be appointed Sub-Engineers by transfer. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that once a person is borne in the cadre of Sub-Engineer either by way of direct recruitment or by way of appointment by transfer, the cadre of Sub-Engineer as a whole becomes one single homogenous cadre. According to the learned Senior Counsel, any particular in-service candidate, once appointed sub-engineer on his acquiring the necessary qualifications while working in non-engineering category, would lose his whatever distinct identity and he would be part of the same common cadre of sub-engineer comprising direct recruitees and appointees by transfer. Accordingly, it is manifestly illegal, contended the learned Senior Counsel, to take into account the service of those employees who were appointed by transfer from the date of their initial appointment rather than from the date of their actual appointment to the feeder category. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on P. Sudhakar Rao and Others vs. U. Govinda Rao and Others, 2013 (5) ALT 17 (SC): 2013 (6) SCJ 10: (2013) 8 SCC 693.

3. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Company has strenuously contested the claim of the petitioners and has further justified the promotion provided to the respondents 5 to 10, who in fact were initially appointed Sub-Engineers by transfer on their acquiring