The court rejected the petitioner's claim for seniority fixation based on her appointment date, holding that seniority is reckoned from the date of joining service under Regulation 26 of A.P.S.E.B. Service Regulations Part-II. The writ petition was dismissed.
No consequential direction to fix seniority was granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION N0.18725 of 2011
ORDER:
The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.) by the then Electricity Board through proceedings, dated 17.11.1993. She joined the duty on 20.12.1993 within the stipulated time. She made several representations to the respondents, stating that she has not been assigned the proper place in the seniority list of L.D.Cs. and that in turn has reflected in the subsequent posts, to which she was promoted. Ultimately, through memo, dated 29.07.2009, the 2nd respondent rejected the representations made by the petitioner. This writ petition is filed challenging the said memo and for a consequential direction to the respondents to fix her seniority in the cadre of L.D.C., in terms of Regulation 26 of the A.P.S.E.B. Service Regulations Part-II.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner is under the impression that her seniority must be reckoned from the date of the order of appointment i.e., 17.11.1993. However, it is only the date, on which an employee joins the service, that would be treated as the date of entry, and that it is from that date that the seniority is reckoned. Regulation 26 mandates that the seniority of a person in any category shall be reckoned on the basis of the rank assigned to him in the approved list drawn by the appointing authority. The petitioner is not able to point out that she has been assigned any rank in the post of L.D.C. and that the same has not been reflected in the subsequent promotions. She did not furnish the names of the persons, who according to her, figured below her in the
merit list of L.D.Cs. but were placed above her at subsequent stages. Under these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the memo issued by the 2nd respondent.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________ 02.08.2011
JSU
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION N0.18725 of 2011
Date: 02.08.2011
JSU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee's seniority can be reckoned from the date of appointment order rather than the date of joining the service.
Whether the memo rejecting the petitioner's representation regarding seniority deserves interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
2nd Respondent
L. NARASIMHA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
