Prior service rendered before an inter-state transfer is valid for promotion eligibility, even if seniority is lost, as established by previous court rulings.

ORDER :

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“…..to issue an appropriate Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 2^nd respondent in Memo No.24265/CS.I/2021, dated 8.4.2021 in rejecting the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of DEE as illegal and arbitrary and runs contrary to the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.17258/2020 dt. 14.12.2020 and contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1996 (1) SCC 524, 1994 (1) SCC 373 and consequentially declare that the petitioner is entitled for promotion from the date on which others were promoted w.e.f 3.1.2020 with all consequential attendant benefits….”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in A.P. Public Health and Municipal Engineering Services as direct recruitee on 26.06.2013. In view of the bifurcation of the State, keeping in view of the Policy of both the governments for Inter State Transfers vide Memo dated 07.08.2017 on making application Government of Telangana issued G.O.Rt.No.157, MA & UD Department, dated 13.03.2018 ordering Inter State Transfer on mutual grounds subject to taking last rank next to the last regular candidate. Even before that the State of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.73, MA & UD Department, affecting Inter State Transfer of Mohd.Sirajuddin on mutual basis accommodating the petitioner from Telangana to Andhra Pradesh. As per Inter State guidelines dated 07.08.2017 and the proceedings under which the petitioner was transferred to the State of A.P. categorically states that the petitioner should take last rank next to the last rank candidate. Accordingly, the Engineer-in-Chief on 30.01.2019 prepared Provisional Seniority List of AEEs/AEs (PH) of Zone-I to IV. In respect of Zone-I, the petitioner was shown at Serial No.3 after last regular recruitee candidate. The Serial No.1 is the regular candidate of Zone-I with 10.01.2014. Though the petitioner senior as per the date of appointment in view of the condition fixed in the interstate transfer orders, the petitioner was shown below No.1 and No.2. While so, on 03.09.2019 Final Seniority List of AEs and AEEs of Zone-I, II, III and IV was prepared. In respect of Zone-I though the petitioner’s name is to be shown at Serial No.3, the petitioner’s name was deleted from the list. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 16.09.2019 to the 2^nd respondent to include his name in the final seniority list and place before the DPC for Deputy Executive Engineer (for short “DEE”). The respondents without showing petitioner’s name in seniority list, affected promotions to K.Sitharam Murthy, and NVSS Narayana vide orders dated 03.01.2020 from AEEs quota. The petitioner is next person in the cycle. Now the respondents are taking steps to effect promotions from DEEs to EEs, thereby the post of DEE will fall vacant. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.24265/2020 questioning the action of the respondent in not showing petitioner’s name in the Final Seniority List dated 03.09.2019 in Zone-I, after N.V.S.S.Narayana as per the Government circular dated 07.08.2017, keeping in view of the G.O.Rt.No.157, MA & UD Department, dated 13.03.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.73, MA & UD Department, dated 16.02.2018 as illegal and arbitrary. The respondents filed counter stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.452, MA & UD Department, dated 20.06.2017, the petitioner should have minimum 3 years service. Since the petitioner not having 3 years of service, his case cannot be considered. The question of providing 3 years minimum service in the same department in respect of the petitioner, one P.Jayadev who filed W.P.No.17258/2020 before a Division Bench of this Court with same subject matter. In the said petition, the issue raised was the length of service is different from minimum service. This Court, directed the respondents to consider the case of the pe