DABBARA GOPAL NAIDU Vs. ENGINEERINCHIEF

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that all the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers in the year 2007 in the Public Health Department except the 5th petitioner in the year 2008, in pursuance of selection made by A.P. Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in Public Health Department, whereas the 3rd petitioner was appointed in the year 2007 in the Municipal Administration Department. Both the Deputy Executive Engineers (for short "DEE") working in Public Health Department as well as Municipal Administration Department are eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer based on the combined integrated seniority list quota fixed in terms of the Special Rules. All the petitioners were promoted as DEEs in Public Health Department and Municipal Administration Department vide DPC recommendation vide Proceedings No.444/CS1/2013, dtd. 4/4/2013 in pursuance of including their names for the panel year 2012-2013. After receiving promotion orders dtd. 4/4/2013, the 1st four petitioners joined on 6/4/2013, whereas the 5th petitioner joined on 8/4/2013. While so, one M.Narayana Swamy, who belongs to reserved category, whose name placed at Serial No.1, in the order of promotion, dtd. 4/4/2013 joined on 7/4/2013. On the ground that M.Narayana Swamy is placed at Serial No.1, the authorities determined the seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineers reckoning the seniority of DEEs only with effect from 7/4/2013. The 1st respondent vide proceedings No.8844/CS1/2020, dtd. 28/10/2020 communicated the provisional seniority list of DEE (Zonal and integrated) as per the length of service, wherein the 1st respondent issued the zonal seniority of DEEs for Zone-IV and other zones and the said provisional integrated seniority list dtd. 28/10/2020 discloses that the seniority list was prepared based on the length of service, but not as per Rules 33, 33(b) and 34 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. The petitioners have submitted their objections to the aforesaid provisional seniority list of DEEs at zonal level as well as state level and requested to determine the seniority of the petitioners without reference to length of service and follow Rules 33, 33(b) and 34 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules by making representations dtd. 10/11/2020, 11/11/2020 and 13/11/2020 respectively. The 1st respondent without application of mind, without giving any reasons, has rejected the objections submitted by the petitioners vide proceedings dtd. 30/11/2020. On the same day itself, the 1st respondent issued final integrated state-wide seniority list of DEEs based on length of service vide proceedings No.8844/CS1/2023. Subsequently, the petitioners made representation to the Government requesting not to give effect to the seniority list issued by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dtd. 30/11/2020. Aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent in issuing final seniority list vide proceedings dtd. 30/11/2020, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that, as per Rule 33(b) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, the appointing authority may, at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a service, fix either for the purpose of satisfying the rule of reservation of appointments or for any other reason, the order of preference among them, and where such order has been fixed, seniority shall be determined in accordance with it. It is further stated that, as per Rule 34 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, the integrated or common seniority list of a particular class, or category or grade in any service belonging to different units of appointment has to be prepared for the purpose of promotion or appointment by transfer to a class or category having different units of appointment or for any other purpose, such an integrated or common seniority list shall be prepared with reference to the seniority list of the persons inter-se belonging to the same units shall not be disturbed. The Zone is the criteria for the purpose of recruitment, promotion, seniority, discharge and appointment, etc, in respect of the post of DEE as per the presidential order. It is further stated that, based on the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the promotions were considered on 4/4/2013 to the post of DEE. In these promotions, the top most approved candidate under Zone-IV was M.Narayana Swamy and his date of joining in the promotion post of DEE was 7/4/2013. This date is assigned to the subsequent approved candidates (juniors) to M.Narayana Swamy in the seniority list of DEE to maintain the order/seriatum of the panel approved by the Department Promotion Committee (DPC). Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition.