Promotees cannot claim seniority over direct recruits as per established service rules regarding recruitment and seniority determination.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela)

Heard,

Sri Srinivasa Rao Mortha, learned counsel representing Sri K. Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the State.

1. Dissatisfied and embittered by the order of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in O.A.No.2540 of 2017, dated 01.09.2017, the present writ petition is preferred by the applicants in the O.A. under challenge.

2. The case of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that they moved the Tribunal challenging the impugned Memo No.310986/Ex.I(I)/2016, dated 03.02.2017, issued by the 1^st respondent and the Consequential Memo in C.R.No.4606/2016/CPC/C1, dated 08.02.2017, of the 2^nd respondent. The facts are not disputed by either side that the petitioners are the promotees, and the unofficial respondents, who got impleaded through I.A.No.1 of 2023 i.e. respondent Nos.4 and 6, vide Court order dated 13.09.2023, are the direct recruits. The petitioners contended that they were initially appointed as Junior Assistants and later appointed by transfer, having gained eligibility as Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspectors during the year 2006. The final seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Inspectors of Zone-1, Visakhapatnam, was communicated on 22.08.2007. As per the said seniority list, the names of the petitioners figure at Serial Nos.140, 143 and 156 respectively, which became final and since no appeal filed against it. Thereafter, promotions were accorded through which the 1^st petitioner was promoted as Prohibition and Excise Inspector in the year 2007, and the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners were promoted in the year 2010 and left unchallenged. When there was a proposal for according promotion to the post of Prohibition and Excise Inspectors vide proceedings Rc.No.301/2013/A1, dated 07.11.2013, by the 2^nd respondent and was in the process, a representation by some of the direct recruits was entertained in pursuance to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.10646 of 2006, dated 07.04.2016, and the 2^nd respondent reopened the said seniority list and a consequential direction was issued to the 3^rd respondent on 08.02.2017.

3. The entire case of the petitioners/applicants is that they are born promotees and were promoted to the high cadres from the post of Junior Assistant, and there was no objection whatsoever from any quarter.

4. There is no dispute that the vacant posts meant for the direct recruits were occupied by the promotees, i.e., the petitioners. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, though the posts meant for the direct recruits were occupied by the petitioners, the same was not questioned and became final. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a circular issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Circular Memo No.57759/Ser.A/2004-1, dated 20.05.2004. The said memo reiterates the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which entails that “no request for revision of seniority list for a period which is more than 3 years old shall be considered”. He also relied upon an interim order passed in W.P.M.P.No.34815 of 2017 in W.P.No.28013 of 2013, which is of similar nature, wherein this Court, as an interim measure, protected the rights of the promotees on the ground that when the inter se seniority has become final, based on the legal principles settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is wholly undesirable to disturb the final seniority list after more than 15 years.

5. This Court finds no doubt regarding the settled principle about the inter se seniority list cannot be disturbed. But in the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petit