The central legal point established is the requirement for the respondents to adhere to the A.P. State & Sub-Ordinate Service Rules, 1996 in determining seniority and promotions, and to ensure natural justice is upheld in the process.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief:

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction, to call for the records relating to Memo No. SO.I(I)/DEE-IV/RWS and S/12335/2016, dated 29.12.2016 and consequential proceedings No. S.O.I (IV)/DEE-IV/RWS and S/12335/2015, dated 03.03.2017 reverting the petitioner issued by the 3rd respondent and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable and contrary to principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to place the petitioner above Sl.No.49 and continuing him as Deputy Executive and pass such other orders.”

2. Heard Mr. M. Ratna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, Services-II for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while working in Panchayat Raj Department in Zone-IV, vide G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 03.01.2011 was appointed by transfer to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, Zone-IV in Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department in terms of Rule 3 of A.P. Rural Water Supply Engineering Services-2008 giving last rank in the seniority list of regular Assistant Executive Engineer, Zone-IV subject to the eligibility and that the petitioner shall forego his lien in Panchayat Raj Department, since there is no provision for departmental transfer therein. The petitioner passed Accounts Test for PWD Officers and Subordinates vide letter dated 15.03.1999 and his services was regularized in the care of AEEs vide proceedings dated 16.05.2009, wherein the name of the petitioner is shown in commencing his probation from 24.11.2014. While the matter stood thus, the respondents without following the rules, the seniority list prepared four years back is now sought to be reviewed in the name of tentative provisional seniority list affecting the petitioner’s seniority and placed him at Sl.No.74 below his juniors, who were not even eligible to be promoted as on 13.09.2013, the date on which the petitioner is promoted. The petitioner submitted objections, but without considering the same, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 03.03.2017, wherein the name of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.48 along with others. Based on the said tentative seniority list, Ad-hoc promotion was given to the individual from Assistant Executive Engineer to Deputy Executive Engineer. The 2nd respondent issued show-cause notice dated 29.12.2016 showing as to why the services of DEE has not been reverted from the cadre. The petitioner made representation to the 2nd respondent requesting him not to revert to the post of AEE from the cadre of DEE, but without considering his request the 2nd respondent issued proceedings to revert the petitioner to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer from Deputy Executive Engineer, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the writ petition came to be filed.

4. Per contra, the respondents filed counter-affidavit denying all material averments made in the affidavit and mainly contended that as per tentative provisional seniority list dated 14.09.2011 the name of the petitioner shown at Sl.No.48. Basing on the said list the petitioner got promotion as Deputy Executive Engineer purely on adhoc basis as per his seniority, subject to outcome of any judgments pending against the above seniority and liable for reversion at any time without any notice to the individual. It is further contended that another revised tentative seniority list was prepared by duly incorporating the Assistant Executive Engineers, who were appointed during the year 2010-2011, duly following the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 under Rule 33(b). Accordingly the name of the petitioner was shown after the public service commission candidates appointed during the year 2010 and their date of probation was commenced with effect from 07.01.2011 and whereas the petitioner’s date of probation is 13.01.2011, which is behind the 2010 APPSC Batch. As such the name of the petitioner