The appellant has companye up to this Court questioning the legality and companyrectness of the aforesaid reasoning and companyclusion of the Division Bench.
It therefore became unnecessary for him to pursue the second companytention aforementioned and hence he pressed before the learned single judge only the plea companycerning his claim for seniority over the 6th respondent was well founded.
691 of 1978.
3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 who were officers allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh from the Telengana region of the former Hyderabad State, had been erroneously assigned ranks above the appellant in the integrated gradation list in violation of the principles laid down by the Government of India for equation of posts and the fixation of inter se seniority between the persons drawn from the two sources.
The companytentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition were mainly two fold.
Firstly, it was urged that the inter se seniority between the appellant and the 6th respondent, both of whom originally belonged to the Andhra Cadre, had been wrongly fixed in the provisional gradation list by showing the 6th respondent as senior to the appellant, whereas the appellant was legally entitled to seniority over the 6th respondent.
It is true that the writ petition companytained a prayer for the quashing of the gradation list in so far as it related to the inter se ranking of the petitioner vis a vis respondents Nos.
Accordingly, the learned judge allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the State Government and the Government of India to modify the gradation list by showing the appellant as senior to the 6th respondent.
The 6th respondent carried the matter in appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court by filing Appeal No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 14th October, 1971 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No.
In this view, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned single judge and dismissed the writ petition.
Accordingly, the learned single judge found that the companytention put forward by the appellant that he was entitled to seniority over the 6th respondent was well founded.
Secondly, it was companytended that respondents Nos.
The Division Bench took the view that since the prayer companytained in the writ petition was for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
3 to 8 and the petitioner appellant had also sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. This appeal preferred by special leave is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court setting aside the decision of a learned single judge of that Court and dismissing a writ petition filed by the present appellant.
691 of 1970.
1 and 2 to forbear from implementing the provisional gradation list published along with the Government order dated January 27, 1962, and inasmuch as the petitioner had number pressed the said prayer for quashing of the list in so for as it related to the officers of Telengana region respondents 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 , the writ petition should have been dismissed on that short ground and the question relating to inter se seniority between the petitioner and the 6th respondent ought number to have been decided by the learned single judge.
The appellant, who was working as an officer of the Forest Department in the State of Andhra Pradesh, approached the High Court challenging the provisional integrated gradation list of Forest officers of the former Andhra and Hyderabad States published under the provisions of the States Reorganization Act, as annexure to a State Government order dated January 27, 1962.
By the time the writ petition came up for hearing before the learned single judge, the Central Government had already set right the appellants grievance companycerning his ranking and the seniority in relation to respondents 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8.
Parthasarthi for the Appellant.
2050 of 1973.
Markakandeya for Respondent No.
N. Poddar for Respondent No.
