IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION (TR) No.902 of 2017 THE 11TH DAY OF FEBURARY 2026 Between:

D.Venkateshwarlu.

…Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayatraj and Rural Development Department and others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present Writ Petition (TR) is filed seeking to declare that the confirmed seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers of Zone-VI issued in Memo No.SO-III(6A)/00009/2005, dated 18.07.2013, in so far as it does not show the petitioner in the appropriate place and the revised seniority list of Graduate Deputy Executive Engineers, PR, Zone-VI, issued in Memo No.SER.VI(1)/6971/2013 dated

08.08.2013, in so far as it does not show the petitioner in the panel year of 1997-98 while showing juniors to him who were promoted in subsequent panel years, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be shown between Sri Tirupathaiah and Sri M.Raghu (between Sl.Nos.76 and 77) in the seniority list of AEEs in Zone-VI and to declare that the date of commencement of probation of the petitioner shall continue to be shown as 06.05.1989 with his position in the seniority list adjusted accordingly and further to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be shown in the seniority list of Graduate Deputy Executive Engineers in Zone-VI for the panel year

1997-98.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned memos dated 18.07.2013 and 08.08.2013 in the present case were the subject matters before the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.5831 of 2013 and batch and O.A.No.6428 of 2013 and batch, respectively and the same were set-aside vide common Judgments dated 22.08.2014 22.08.2014 was followed in the consequent common Judgment finality. In view of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to pass a similar order in this Writ Petition (TR) also.

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II did not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the disposal of O.A.No.5831 of 2013 and batch and also O.A.No.6428 of 2013 and batch vide common Judgments dated 22.08.2014 and 27.08.2014 respectively. In view of the same, learned Assistant Government Pleader requested to pass appropriate orders.

5. In view of the submissions made by both sides, the common Judgment dated 22.08.2014 in O.A.No.5831 of 2013 and batch and for the reasons mentioned therein, this Writ Petition (TR) is disposed of granting similar relief as in the aforesaid common Judgment dated 22.08.2014 in O.A.No.5831 of 2013 and batch.

6. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition (TR), shall stand closed. There shall be no orders as to costs.

_____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date: 11.02.2026.

MVM