THE APSRTC Vs. V. MURALIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE A.P.S.R.T.C. (for short "the Corporation") filed this Writ Appeal assailing the order dated 25.09.2013 in W.P. No. 10745 of 2009 which in turn, was filed by the sole respondent.

(2.) THE respondent joined the service of the Corporation as a Conductor in Bhagyanagar region on 27.03.1985, and on his request, he was transferred to Nizamabad region vide orders dated 05.08.1987. He stated that he passed, the test prescribed for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant in the year 1993 itself. He was promoted to as Junior Assistant on 04.07.2008 along with 12 others vide orders dated 03.07.2008 passed by the 3rd appellant. However, through an order dated 29.05.2009, the 3rd appellant reverted the respondent to the post of Conductor. The reason mentioned by the 3rd appellant was that the seniority of the respondent was wrongly reckoned, with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 27.03.1985, in stead of the date of his joining the service in the Nizamabad Region i.e. 18.08.1987. It was also pointed out that the respondent was placed at SI. No. 284 in the seniority list of Conductors of Nizamabad Region, on the basis of his date of joining of service 27.03.1985, and on correction of the mistake, the respondent came to be placed at SI. No. 434A in the revised seniority list dt. 21.03.2009.

(3.) THE appellant opposed the writ petition by stating that the seniority in the feeder category of Conductor constituted the basis, and the mere fact that the respondent secured eligibility, does not enable him to steal march. It was also urged that under a mistaken impression that the respondent joined the Nizamabad Region on 27.03.1985, he was placed at serial No. 284 and once the mistake was noticed and it was realized that the respondent joined the Nizamabad Region only on 18.08.1987, he was placed at S. No. 434 -A. The appellant further pleaded that the question of violation of principles of natural justice does not arise and that the impugned order came to be issued, on the basis of revised seniority list dt. 21.03.2009.