Employees transferred at their own request must forfeit previous seniority and accept the lowest rank in the new department, as stipulated by service regulations.

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

Petitioner was appointed as Trainee Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in APGENCO on 05-09-2000. APTRANSCO issued TOO Ms. No. 35 dated 13-05-2005 allowing absorption on transfer between companies and APGENCO adopted this by Memo dated 30-06-2005. When petitioner sought absorption in APNPDCL (now TSNPDCL); APGENCO requested APNPDCL’s concurrence via letter dated 09-12-2005, leading to G.O.O. No. 364 dated 19-12-2005 for mutual absorption of six AEs each. Petitioner was relieved via memo dated 05-01-2006 and joined APNPDCL on 01-02-2006, later promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer, fully eligible for Divisional Engineer promotion.

1.1. Regulation 25(f) of APSEB Service Regulations Part-II states mutual transferees shall forego seniority based on first appointment and take last rank among probationers in transferee unit. Petitioner, having completed probation on 11-06-2003, requested inclusion below approved probationers by representation dated 04-02-2006 but received no reply. It is stated, by Memo dated 04-01-2008, provisional seniority list of Assistant Engineers was issued placing contract appointees figured at Sl.Nos. 3 to 72 above the petitioner contrary to regulations. Petitioner objected to the same on 23-04-2008 but the said objections were rejected by memo dated 08-05-2009. Thereafter, final seniority list was issued showing petitioner at Sl.No. 112; without communicating the said seniority list, 45 AEs were promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineers via NOO dated 11-05-2009. Claiming the said order illegal, Writ Petition No. 10340 of 2010 was filed.

1.2. According to petitioner, when one Sri D. Mallesham, who was transferred as approved probationer on 22-06-2005 and placed below probationary AEs., made representation through SC & ST Rights Protection Society, APTRANSCO clarified by letter dated 28-08-2009 to follow Regulation 25(f)(b)(i)&(ii) and earlier memos for seniority fixation. Despite this, petitioner’s seniority was not revised whereas Mallesham was promoted in September 2009. Subsequently also, APTRANSCO by memo dated 16-04-2011 stated transferred employee seniority shall be counted from joining transferee company only. Petitioner filed further representations; APTRANSCO’s letter dated 08-02-2012 reaffirmed seniority per TOO Ms. No. 35 dated 13-05-2005 excluding subsequent clarifications. Petitioner’s 17-01-2012 representation remains unconsidered.

1.3. Petitioner states that peers appointed with him in APGENCO were promoted as Additional Divisional Engineers and considered for promotion as Divisional Engineers, but he is denied seniority benefits by the 2^nd respondent. Petitioner therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 22482 of 2012 claiming seniority below approved probationers and the said Writ Petition pending. While so, the 3rd respondent communicated revised integrated provisional seniority list dated 31-05-2010 for which, he submitted objections on 31-05-2010 and 23-07-2017. Again objections were rejected by memo dated 24-04-2017 and final seniority list placed him at Sl.No. 52 reckoning joining date as 01-02-2006 rather than initial APGENCO appointment, below Respondents 5 and 6 at Sl.Nos. 15 and 16. The impugned memo dated 27.04.2017 and the memo dated 24.04.2017 suffer from non-application of mind and exceed authority by deviating from Regulations via clarifications, thus illegal, contends petitioner.

1.4. According to petitioner, it is settled law that there is no power vested in the official respondents to alter the purport and content of the Regulatio