@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K.C. Bhanu, J.@mdashThis Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to order dated 02.09.2013, in O.A. No. 3276 of 2012 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative. Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ''the Tribunal'') and set aside the same. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 10203/2011 against the respondents 1 to 3 and the District Medical & Health Officer, Chittoor, before the Tribunal for a direction to the respondents to consider her case for promotion to the post of Health Educator as per her seniority, and in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 2, Social Welfare (SW.ROR.I) Department, dated 09.01.2004. While admitting the O.A., the Tribunal passed interim orders, dated 29.12.2011, in O.A. No. 10203 of 2011, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said interim orders, the 1st respondent issued proceedings in Rc. No. 2214/B2/2011, dated 02.04.2012, promoting the petitioner to the post of Health Educator. Challenging the said proceedings, respondents 4 and 5 filed O.A. No. 3276 of 2012 against the official respondents, by impleading the petitioner (applicant in O.A. No. 10203 of 2011), and also VMA No. 1237 of 2012 in O.A. No. 10203 of 2011 for vacating the interim order granted on 29.12.2011.
The official respondents filed counters in both the O.As., admitting that the petitioner, who belongs to O.C. community and is junior to the respondents 4 and 5, was promoted to the post of Health Educator, that the promotion was given basing on the interim orders issued by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 10203 of 2011. They have also admitted that the respondents 4 and 5 are seniors to the petitioner. The Tribunal, through its order, dated 02.09.2013, dismissed O.A. No. 10203 of 2011 and vacated the interim order, passed by it on 29.12.2011. Further, the Tribunal partly allowed O.A. No. 3276 of 2012 setting aside the proceedings, dated 02.01.2012, issued by the 1st respondent, and directed the respondents to consider the cases of respondents 4 and 5 for promotion to the post of Health Educators as per their seniority, eligibility and Rules. Challenging the order in O.A. No. 3276 of 2012, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare, and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as Health Educator as per the final seniority list of Multi Purpose Health Assistants (Male and Female) in R.C. No. 966/B2/2009, dated 09.05.2011, issued by the 3rd respondent in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 2, Social Welfare (SW.ROR.I) Department, dated 09.01.2004. He placed reliance on the final seniority list for promotion to the post of Health Educators, in proceedings Rc. No. 966/B2/2009, dated 09.05.2011, issued by the 3rd respondent in which the petitioner''s name was shown in serial No. 10, as eligible candidate to be promoted as a Heath Educator. He further contended that one Smt. Rajeswari was given promotion as Health Educator, who was shown as senior to the petitioner in the seniority list, dated 09.05.2011, therefore, the petitioner alone is eligible for promotion as per that seniority list.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, contended that as and when the vacancy to the post of Health Educator is available, the seniority list will be prepared for the purpose of promotion and on 02.11.2011 another seniority list was prepared for the purpose of giving promotions as Health Educator, and in that seniority list, the 4th respondent was shown as senior than the petitioner, therefore, she is eligible for promotion as per the seniority list, dated 02.11.2011, and hence, that order needs no interference by this Court.
5. It is not in dispute before this Court that the writ petitioner was appointed as a Health Assistant on 08.01.1996, whereas the 4th respondent was appointed as Health Assistant prior to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner acquired Diploma in Health Education, which is mandatory for the next promotion in the year 2007 and the 4th respondent acquired the said qualification in June, 2011. In the seniority list, dated 09.05.2011, one Smt. Rajeswari was shown at serial No. 9 and the petitioner was shown at serial No. 10. The said Rajeswari was given promotion. There is no pleading in the O.A., filed by the petitioner, that another vacancy arose after giving promotion to Rajeswari in the month of May 2011 and her case has not been considered though she is eligible to be promoted as Health Educator.
6. When another seniority list was prepared on 02.11.2011, the names of persons, who are eligible to be promoted as Health Educators have been shown. This seniority list dated 02.11.2011 for giving promotions to Health Educator in Zone-IV is not under challenge. If really any vacancy arose prior to 02.11.2011, and after 09.05.2011 and the promotion has not been given to the petitioner, she ought to have approached the Tribunal seeking redressal of her grievance. Even assuming that there was a vacancy arisen after 09.05.2011 and before 02.11.2011, that has to be considered in terms of the final seniority list for promotion, which was prepared on 02.11.2011. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering these aspects, has rightly directed the official respondents to consider the case of the applicants in O.A. No. 3276 of 2012 for promotion to the post of Health Educator, as per their seniority and eligibility and as per the rules, and that order needs no interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
