APHC010726732016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3529]

WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION Nos: 4493 of 2016, 38747 of 2015, 14864 of 2017 &

3629 of 2021

WRIT PETITION NO: 4493 of 2016

Between:

1. K.V.L.NARASIMHA RAO,, S/O. LATE K.SEETARAMA SWAMY

AGE:52 YEARS, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(R& B), SECTION-

II S.KOTA-II, SUB-DIVISION, VIZIANAGARAM-535145.

2. P.SRINIVASA RAO,, SRI P.B.KALIDAS AGE:52 YEARS,

ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(R&B) SPECIAL SECTION -I,

SPECIAL SUB-DIVISION SRIKAKULAM-532001.

3. RSN MURTHY,, S/O. SRI R.SATYAMURTHY AGE: 55YEARS,

ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(R&B) NARSIPATNAM SECTION,

VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

4. K.S.PRABHU,, S/O. LATE K.DHRAMA RAO, AGE:48 YEARS,

ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(R&B) VISAKHAPATNAM

SECTION, VISAKHAPATNAM SUB -DIVISION VISAKHAPATNAM

DIST.

5. N.NARASIMHA MUR THY,, S/O. SRI N.PAVANA MURTHY AGE:48

YEARS, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(R&B) CHODAVARAM

SECTION, CHODAVARAM VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

6. D.APPA RAO,, S/O. LATE D.NARAYANA MURTHY AGE:55

YEARS, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(R&B) BUILDINGS SUB -

DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM VISAK

2

RRR,J& TCDS,J

W.P.No.4493 of 2016 & batch

HAPATNAM DIST.

7. CH.V.K.LAKSHMI KOWSALYA,, D/O. CH.VENKATESHWAR RAO,

AGE:45 YEARS, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (R&B),

DIVISION-III, D&P WING, 0/O. ENGINEER -IN-CHIEF (R&B),

ERRUMMANZIL, HYDERABAD.

8. S.VENUGOPALA RAO,, S/O.VAMANA RAO, AGE:50 YEARS,

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (R&B), NARSIPATNAM,

VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

9. T.SRINIVAS RAO,, S/O.SANYASI RAO, AGE:49 YEARS, DEPUTY

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (R&B), 0/O.RIMS, BALAGA,

SRIKAKULAM.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. M GANESHWA RA RAO, S/O. NAGOOR, AGE: 41 YEARS, A.E.

R&B, MOGALTUR, SC, WEST GODAVARI DIST. R/O.5 -2A;

PEDAPETA, VEERAVASARAN MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI

DISTRICT

2. K RAMASWAMY, S/O.SUNDER RAO, AGE: 39 YEARS, A.E.,

R&B, RUDRAPAKA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, R/O.H.NO.10 -69,

RAVINDRA NAGAR, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

3. B V RAMANAYYA, S/O. B.SUNDARAIAH, AGE:47 YEARS, A.E.,

R&B, O/O DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, Q.C.SUB

DIVISION NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

4. K V RANGAIAH, PITCHAIAH, AGE:46, A.E., R&B, 0/O DEPUTY

EXECUTIVE ENGINEE R, SUB DIVISION GIDDALURU,

PRAKASHAM DISTRICT.

5. AMANULLA SAHEB, S/O. ZILANI BASHA, AGE:39 YEARS, A.E,

R&B, O/O DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB DIVISION

ATMAKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

6. P V BHASKAR RAO, S/O. DAMODAR RAO, AGE:47 YEARS,

A.E., R&B, 0 /0 D.E.E., SUB DIVISION KANKIPADU,

VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

3

RRR,J& TCDS,J

W.P.No.4493 of 2016 & batch

7. J SESHU BABU, S/O.J.SUBBA RAO, AGE:46 YEARS, A.E.,

R&B, O/O. CHIEF ENGINEER, R&B & MDAPRDC, HYDERABAD

8. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS

PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, ROADS AND BUI LDINGS

DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

9. N SEKHAR, S/O.N.VENKATASWAMY, AGE: 47 YEARS,

WORKING AS A.E.E. O/O.ENC (R&B) NH & ADMN.,

ERRAMANZIL, HYDERABAD, R/O.F.NO.509, SAIRAM SRINIDHI

GARDENS, SANGEETH NAGAR, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD.

10. P MEERA ANUSHA, D/O.P.ESWARA RAO, AGE 41 YEARS,

WORKING AS A.E.E. 0/O.ENC, NH & ADMN., ERRAMANZIL,

HYDERABAD, R/O.H.NO.8 -7-113/10, NAGIREDDY COLONY,

R.R.NAGAR, OLD BOWENPALLY, SECUNDERABAD

11. A RAMAN KUMAR, S/O.A.KUMARASWAMY, AGE 45 YEARS,

WORKING AS A.E.E. O/O.ENC (R&B) CITY ROAD DIVSN,

ERRAMANZIL, HYDERABAD. R/O.F.NO.F2, JAGINI ENCLAVE,

MATHA LAKSHMI NAGAR, GADDIANNARAM,

DILSUKHNAGAR, HYDERABAD.

12. U NARSIMULU, S/O.U.NARASAPPA, AGE 45 YEA RS,

WORKING AS A.E.E. O/O.ENC (R&B) NARASAPUR SECTION,

SANGA REDDY DIVISION, ERRAMANZIL, HYD. R/O.F.NO.201,

POOJA RESIDENCY, S.R.NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

13. I V PRIYAKUMAR, S/O.I.SREENIVASULU, AGED: 44 YEARS,

WORKING AS A.E.E., O/O.ENC (R&B), ERRAMANZIL,

HYDERABAD. R/O.F.NO.204, ANAND VILLA, 6 -3-609/107,

ANAND NAGAR, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD.

14. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, REP., BY ITS P RINCIPLE

SECRETARY, TRANSPORT, ROADS AND BUILDINGS

DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

15. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, EN -

UMMANZIL, HYDERABAD.

16. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA,

ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, ERRUMMANZIL,

4

RRR,J& TCDS,J

W.P.No.4493 of 2016 & batch

HYDERABAD.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in

the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court

may be pleased toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records

relating to O.A.No:6756/2009 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh

Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the orders dt.17.8.2015 in

0.A.No.6756/2009

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 2837 OF 2016

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances

stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may

be pleased to grant leave to the petitioners herein to file the above writ

petition challenging the orders dt.17.8.2015 passed by the Andhra

Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.6756/2009

IA NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP 2838 OF 2016

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances

stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may

be pleased to dispense with the filing of Certified copy of the orders

dt.17.8.2015 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal,

Hyderabad in O.A.No.6756/2009

IA NO: 3 OF 2016(WPMP 2839 OF 2016

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances

stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may

be pleased to permit the petitioners to implead the State of Telangana,

Engineer-in-Chief, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Engineer-in-

Chief, Government of Telangana as respondent No.14, 15 & 16 in the

above writ petition

IA NO: 7 OF 2016(WPMP 5753 OF 2016

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances

stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may

be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Circular Memo

No.3939/Ser-I(3)/2015, dt.19-12-2015 by suspending the impugned order

5

RRR,J& TCDS,J

W.P.No.4493 of 2016 & batch

dt.17.8.2015 in OA No.6756/2009 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative

Tribunal, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above writ petition

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances

stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may

be pleased Pleased to receive the Government Order and Proceedings

annexed to this IA as a documents in WP No. 4493/2016 and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SODUM ANVESHA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K RAMAMOHAN

2. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL II

3. J SUDHEER

4. P BALA KRISHNA MURTHY

Date of Reserve :16.03.2026

Date of Pronouncement :01.04.2026

Date of Upload :01.04.2026

6

RRR,J& TCDS,J

W.P.No.4493 of 2016 & batch

The Court made the followingCommon Order:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

As the issues raised in all these Writ Petitions are common, they are

being disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. The primary dispute in these Writ Petitions is on the question

ofpromotions to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, under the Andhra

Pradesh Roads and Buildings Engineering Service Rules, from the feeder

categories of Assistant Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers and

Draughtsmen.

3. The Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering Service

Rules, were brought into force, under G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 22.05.1996, on

being published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, on 17.08.1996. Rule 2 of

these Rules sets out the various categories of posts, falling within these

Rules. Rule 3 provides for the method of appointment and appointing

Authorities of these categories of posts. The relevant posts, for the purpose of

these promotions are Deputy Executive Engineer, which is category (5) of

Class A in Rule 2, Assistant Executive Engineer, which is category (6) in

Clause A of Rule 2. Apart from this, the posts of Assistant Engineers,

Draughtsman Special Grade and Draughtsman Grade I, under the Andhra

Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering Subordinate Services are also

relevant.

7

RRR,J& TCDS,J

W.P.No.4493 of 2016 & batch

4. The method of appointment, for Deputy Executive Engineer,

which is the present controversy, reads as follows:

5. Dy. Executive Engineers

(i) By promotion from category (6)

(ii) By appointment by transfer of Asst. Engineers in A.P.

Roads and Buildings Engineering Subordinate Service:

(iii) By appointment by transfer of D’Man Special Grade

and D’Man Grade I from a combined seniority list with

reference to the date of their appointment to the category of

D’Man, Grade I.

5. Category (6) mentioned in Clause – 1 is the post of Assistant

Executive Engineer. This post is filled up in the following manner:

6. Assistant Executive Engineers

(i) By direct recruitment;

(ii) By appointment by transfer of Asst.

Engineer/D’Man, Spl. Grade/D’Man, Grade I who have acquired

a degree in Civil Engineering or Mechanical Engineering from a

combined seniority list with reference to the date of their

appointment to the category of D’Man, Grade I.

6. The Assistant Engineers mentioned in Clause 2 of Rule 3 (5) are

Assistant Engineers appointed, under the Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings

Engineering Subordinate Services. The education qualification for the post of

Assistant Engineer is a Diploma. They are appointed either by direct

recruitment or by promotion from the lower categories of posts, in the Andhra

8

RRR,J& TCDS,J

W.P.No.4493 of 2016 & batch

Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering Subordinate Services. Similarly, the

posts of Draughtsman Special Category and Draughtsman Grade 1 are the

posts within the ambit of the Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering

Subordinate Services. The post of Deputy Executive Engineer is filled either

by way of promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer; by promotion

by way of transfer of Assistant Engineers under the Engineering Subordinate

Service Rules or by transfer of Draughtsman Special Grade and Draughtsman

Grade I, again from the Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering

Subordinate Service.

7. As there are three feeder categories, to the post of Deputy

Executive Engineer, a scheme was framed by way of the Service Rules,

under G.O.Ms.No.103. This scheme was brought in by way of a Note. Under

this Note, a 24-point roster was established. Under this roster, every 4

th

vacancy, except the 20

th

vacancy was reserved for Assistant Engineers from

the Subordinate Services. The 20

th

vacancy was reserved for the

Draughtsmen falling in Class 3, of entry No. 5, in the table, in Rule 3. All

other vacancies are filled by Assistant Executive Engineers falling within

Class 1, of entry 5, in the table, in Rule 3.

8. Initially, the categories of Assistant Executive Engineers,

Assistant Engineers and Draughtsman were taken as three silos, whereunder

persons falling, under these categories were being promoted to the post of

Deputy Executive Engineer, in accordance with the roster set out under Note

9

RRR,J& TCDS,J

W.P.No.4493 of 2016 & batch

– 1, as per their seniority, within their categories. At that stage, the Assistant

Executive Engineers maderepresentations to the Government, contending

that, their promotional avenues were being cut down by the roster system.

One of the primary issues raised by the Executive Engineers was that, the

Assistant Engineers, who were Juniors to them, in terms of the date of joining

of service were being promoted ahead of them and the same was affecting

their promotional avenues. It also appears that, another issue raised by the

Assistant Executive Engineers was that,Assistant Engineers, who were

diploma holders were being posted above the Assistant Executive Engineers

who were degree holders and that, they were being subordinated to persons

from the subordinate services, who were their juniors, though they have been

directly recruitedunder the Engineering Service Rules.

9. The Government, after considering the said representation,issued

G.O.Ms.No.82, dated 25.02.2009. By virtue of this G.O., two provisos were

added to Note – 1, the said provisos read as follows:

“[Provided also that in no case shall an Assistant

Engineer supersede an Assistant Executive Engineer

merely on the basis of the ratio contemplated in the cycle

for appointment by transfer to the position of Deputy

Executive Engineer and the date of appointment in the

respective category shall be the criterion;

Provided also that if an Assistant Engineer who loses

his chance of consideration in the Cycle in view of the

above proviso and if his date of appointment precedes the

date of appointment of an Assistant Executive Engineer

subsequent thereto in the cycle, the case of such Assistant

Engineer shall be considered for promotion against the

point of such Assistant Executive Engineer without making

10

RRR,J& TCDS,J

W.P.No.4493 of 2016 & batch

him wait for the next point in the cycle OR rescheduling the

cycle].

[Subs. by G.O.Ms.No.82, Transport, Roads &

Buildings (S.II), Dt. 25-02-2009]”

10. The said provisos added by G.O.Ms.No.82, came to be

challenged by the Assistant Engineers, in O.A.No.6756 of 2009, before the

Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. This application came to be

dismissed, on 28.03.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners in this

application, moved the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of

W.P.Nos.11390 & 28985 of 2014. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra

Pradesh, set aside the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal

and remanded the matters back to the Andhra Pradesh Administrative

Tribunal, for fresh disposal. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties to the

application, allowed the same by way of an Order, dated 17.08.2015, setting

aside G.O.Ms.No.82. The Assistant Executive Engineers, aggrieved by this

order, have approached this Court, by way of the present writ petitions. The

erstwhile High Court, declined to stay the operation of the Order of the

Tribunal. Thereafter, the Government, in compliance with the Orders of the

Tribunal, issued G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 21.12.2018, deleting the aforesaid

provisos. This deletion was challenged by way of W.P.No.3629 of 2021.

11. The Tribunal, had held that, the Rules, having provided for

separate feeder categories, to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, could

not have super imposed, additional conditions relating to the date of joining in

service and relating to the qualification of the persons, falling in these feeder

11

RRR,J& TCDS,J

W.P.No.4493 of 2016 & batch

categories. The Tribunal had also held that, the birth mark of the education of

the persons in these categories cannot be the basis for discriminating against

the Assistant Engineers.

12. Sri P. Veera Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioners as well as Sri M. Vijaya Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioners in these Writ Petitions, contend that, the said

order of the Tribunal suffers from patent mistakes of law and facts and

requires to be set aside. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the

Assistant Engineers, who had been appointed after a considerable period,

after the appointment of the Assistant Executive Engineers are being

promoted over and above the Assistant Executive Engineers. It is contended

that, the disputed provisos sought to address this issue, by introducing a

system of seniority. It is also contended that the provisos merely ensurethat

persons appointed at an earlier point of time are not deprived of their seniority

and the interest of the Assistant Engineers are also protected in as much as

the second proviso, under dispute, alleviates any hardship faced by the

Assistant Engineers, on account of the Assistant Executive Engineers being

placed in the roster point available for the Assistant Engineers. It is further

contended that a look at the statistics, in relation to the promotions carried out

in these feeder categories, would show that a large number of Assistant

Engineers, who were Juniors, in terms of service, to the Assistant Executive

Engineers had been promoted over and above such Assistant Executive

Engineers, who were seniors to the Assistant Engineers.

12

RRR,J& TCDS,J

W.P.No.4493 of 2016 & batch

13. Sri P. Veera Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel would also

contend that, though the prayer, in the application, was for strikingdown the

provisos, the Administrative Tribunal went beyond the prayer and struck down

the entire G.O. and the same is not permissible.

14. Sri K. G. Krishna Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the respondents – Assistant Engineers, Sri E. Sambasiva Pratap, the

learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the official

respondents and Sri T. Koteswara Rao, the learned counsel appearing for

some of the respondents, in W.P.No.14864 of 2017, support the Orders of the

Tribunal.

15. It is contended by them that the Government having created

separate feeder categories for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive

Engineers, cannot superimpose an additional condition of Seniority. It is also

contended that creating feeder categories and superimposing the condition of

seniority is clearly impermissible as such a condition has no nexus to the

qualification, under the feeder categories. It is further contended that the

question of education cannot be brought in as a condition for discriminating

between Assistant Executive Engineers on the one hand and the Assistant

Engineers and Draughtsmen, on the other hand. On facts, the learned

counsel appearing for the respondents, would contend that, it is the Assistant

Engineers and Draughtsman, who are deprived of their promotional avenues,

13

RRR,J& TCDS,J

W.P.No.4493 of 2016 & batch

on account of Note – 1 and the contention of the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioners that their chances were taken away is incorrect.

Consideration of the Court:

16. The scheme of promotion, before the impugned amendments,

under G.O.Ms.No.82, provided for the merger of three feeder categories, into

the post of Deputy Executive Engineer. The method such merger, was set out

in the 24 point roster, set up in Note-I to Rule 3. Under this roster, the 5

th

, 8

th

,

12

th

, 16

th

and 24

th

posts were reserved for Assistant Engineers. The 20

th

vacancy was reserved for Draughtsmen and the remaining 18 vacancies were

reserved for Assistant Executive Engineers. Under this system, the inter-se

seniority between these three feeder categories was not relevant. Promotions

were to be effected, basing upon the availablevacancy and the seniority within

the feeder category alone.

17. The Assistant Executive Engineers contend that the Assistant

Engineers, who are lesser qualified are being promoted above Assistant

Executive Engineers solely on account of their seniority within their feeder

category and without looking at the overall seniority. The Assistant Executive

Engineers contend that by virtue of this method, the Assistant Engineers,

whoare appointed later are being promoted over Assistant Executive

Engineers who had appointed service at an earlier point of time. It is

contended that this method has effectively cut down the chances of promotion

for Assistant Executive Engineers. On the other hand, the Assistant Engineers

14

RRR,J& TCDS,J

W.P.No.4493 of 2016 & batch

contend that the roster system, though skewed against the Assistant

Engineers was still acceptable as it gave some promotional avenue to the

Assistant Engineers. It is further contended that once the system of roster

points was established, there cannot be a further condition that seniority

should also be taken into account, inasmuch as such a condition would be

arbitrary and discriminatory to the Assistant Engineers. This contention of

Assistant Engineers was accepted by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative

Tribunal.

18. Sri M. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Assistant Executive Engineers relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of The State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Shri

Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors.,

1

to contend that the additional stipulation of

seniority cannot be set aside unless it is shown that such stipulation is

arbitrary or absurd. He would further rely on this judgment to contend that

education qualification can be a rational criterion for creating classification.

The principle laid down in the said judgment is binding on this Court.

However, the judgment may not be relevant for the present case as the

question before this Court is whether an additional condition of seniority, can

be imposed on the 24 point roster system.

19. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the Assistant Engineers relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

1

(1974) 1 SCC Page 19

15

RRR,J& TCDS,J

W.P.No.4493 of 2016 & batch

Court in the case of K. Narayan and Ors., vs. State of Karnataka and Ors

2

.

In this Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that any rule, in

relation to service law, can be tested on the anvil of reasonableness.

20. Though, the State is at liberty to stipulate the conditions of

promotion, it is incumbent on the State to stipulate fair and equitable

conditions, which would not amount to discrimination against one category of

employees. As these three separate feeder categories have to be merged, at

the stage of promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, the method

of roster points cannot be faulted. However, once the State has fixed the

method of roster pointes as the method of promotion, further imposition of

seniority would detract from the roster point system.

21. Under the above system, the senior most Assistant Engineer who

would be eligible to be accommodated in the slotreserved for Assistant

Engineer, may not be promoted till all the Assistant Executive Engineers who

had joined service earlier are accommodated. In this process, the Assistant

Engineer may not be accommodated in the entire 24 point roster. Thus, all the

five slots available to Assistant Engineers may be filled up by Assistant

Executive Engineers only. Thereafter, the new roster would start and the five

posts, which would otherwise be available to Assistant Engineers, within the

same roster would get extinguished and a fresh roster would start. In this

manner, all five posts, would be lost by the Assistant Engineers. This is

2

1994 Supp(1) SCC page 44

16

RRR,J& TCDS,J

W.P.No.4493 of 2016 & batch

because, there is no system of carry forward of vacancies from one roster to

another roster. It would be wholly arbitrary, to impose such a condition, which

would take away the promotional chances of a feeder category to satisfy

another feeder category. The Administrative Tribunal, had set aside the

conditions stipulated above, in G.O.Ms.No.82, for this very reason. We are in

agreement with the view of the Tribunal on this count. Consequently, it would

have to be held that the said stipulations are clearly arbitrary and discriminate

against the Assistant Engineers without any rational nexus to the system of

promotion

22. In the circumstances, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

_________________

T.C.D. SEKHAR, J

RJS

17

RRR,J& TCDS,J

W.P.No.4493 of 2016 & batch

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

&

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION Nos: 4493 of 2016, 38747 of 2015, 14864 of 2017 &

3629 of 2021

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

.04.2026

RJS