ORDER
C.V. Ramulu, J.
1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer w.e.f. 14-9-1977 and consequently to direct the respondents to restore and fix the petitioner's seniority in the cadre of Assistant Divisional Engineer at serial No. 127 instead of 450 in the integrated seniority list communicated by the A.P.S.E.B., through B.P.Ms. No. 115, dated 13-10-1989.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in A.P.S.E.B., w.e.f., 1-10-1965 on temporary basis. Later on, he was selected for regular appointment as Deputy Engineer along with 349 candidates w.e.f., 22-6-1986 and his services were regularized on completion of probation period w.e.f., 23-2-1968. The seniority list prepared by the Chief Engineer, Electricity (Project), Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad, in his Memo No. ROC/1625-P2/66, dated 4-5-1970 was communicated and the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 341 i.e., below one Mr. D. Seetharamaiah at serial No. 340 and above one Mr. K. Murali at serial No. 342. Further in the year 1969, the APSEB appointed another 55 candidates as Junior Engineers from among the 349 Junior Engineers appointed in the year 1966. 329 Junior Engineers were promoted to the next higher posts i.e., Assistant Engineers (subsequently designated as Assistant Divisional Engineers) on various occasions from time to time till September 1977 from among the 349 Junior Engineers, 26 Junior Engineers from serial Nos.324 to 349 were to get promotion by 1977, among them the petitioner was at serial No. 341. While so, to his surprise, the APSEB promoted 80 Junior Engineers vide B.P.Ms. No. 1045, dated 14-9-1977 and in the said proceedings, the immediate juniors of the petitioner who were appointed in the year 1966 were given promotions. Along with them some subsequent appointees of 1969 batch were also promoted. However, though the petitioner had put in 11 years of unblemished service, the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Asst. Divisional Engineer). Immediately he had filed a representation on 4-1-1977 to the respondents for redressal of his grievance. In the meanwhile, the APSEB issued another proceedings through B.P. Ms. No. 1525, dated 29-7-1977 promoting 8 more Junior Engineers ignoring his seniority. All the said 8 Junior Engineers were of 1969 batch. Though, the said representation dated 4-1-1977 was not disposed of, in the meanwhile the petitioner was also promoted as Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 27-4-1978. Thus, he made another representation dated 12-5-1978 with a request to reckon his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineers w.e.f., 4-9-1977, the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted. Further the APSEB has issued B.P.Ms. No. 828, dated 13-1-1985, fixing the seniority of the Assistant Engineers, who were promoted on 14-9-1977 and to his utter surprise his name was not found in the seniority list. Thereafter, the APSEB has issued another B.P.Ms. No. 1155, dated 13-10-1989 regularizing the services of batch of Assistant Engineers, who were promoted subsequent to 1-10-1973 and the Assistant Divisional Engineers were promoted by the State Government as on 1-10-1973. In the said integrated list, the seniority of 245 Assistant Divisional Engineers, wherein, the seniority of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 215 i.e., below to his juniors as against his original rank at Serial No. 127. Aggrieved by the said fixing of seniority, the petitioner had submitted a representation on 18-12-1989 to rectify the mistake in the seniority list. The representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected by Board's Memo. No.DP/DN-8/PR-4-II, dated 6-9-1990 stating that the case of the petitioner for promotion was not considered in September 1977 due to bad record. Again the petitioner submitted another representation on 29-9-1990 to the first respondent explaining the genuineness of his grievance. The said representation was rejected, vide Memo. No.DP/DS(PS)/DM-VII/Y-I(2)/441/90, dated 17-3-1992 by the second respondent stating that the APSEB does not see any justifiable reason to interfere with the integrated seniority list. Aggrieved by the same, he had filed another representation dated 13-3-1992 to the first respondent. In the said representation, he had relied upon G.O.Ms. No. 284, dated 4-8-1999 wherein the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued directions to the Board in respect of promotions and as per the directions the promotions of the candidates shall be considered strictly as per the vacancies arose against their claims in the panel of the year. In the case of the petitioner, the vacancies arose in the month of September 1977 and in view of the said G.O., he could not have been overlooked for promotion and his promotional post could not have been given to any other person. Ignoring all these aspects, on 29-10-1992, the Member-Secretary, APSEB, the second respondent herein vide Memo. No.DS (PS)/ DN-VIII/Y.I (2)/221 had rejected his case. The rejection of the request of the petitioner to restore his seniority with effect from September 1977 is arbitrary and illegal, in view of the fact that the D.P.C., which met in the month of April 1978, has recommended his case after considering the confidential reports, which were considered by the earlier DPC in the month of September 1977. The petitioner also submits that under similar circumstances, W.P. No. 1902 of 1992 challenging the fixation of seniority was filed before this court and this court by an order dated 18-10-1996 allowed the writ petition directing the A.P.S.E.B., to treat him as having been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer from the date on which his immediate junior in the seniority list was promoted and to restore his seniority. The petitioner submits that after pronouncement of the judgment in W.P. No. 1902 of 1992, dated 18-10-1996, the petitioner had made another representation to the first respondent on 5-1-1997 requesting the first respondent to reconsider his case in the light of the said judgment. The first respondent has not taken any action. Hence filed this writ petition.
3. A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the promotion for the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer was considered by the D.P.C., on 26-8-1977 and the name of the petitioner, Mr. T.K. Satyanarayana Chary was figured at serial No. 22. The DPC after reviewing the performance/evaluation, did not recommend the name of Mr. T.K. Satyanarayana Chary for promotion as Assistant Divisional Engineer due to bad record. The recommendations of the DPC were approved by the Appointing Authority. According to the eligible Assistant Engineers included in the panel for promotion of Assistant Divisional Engineers/Electrical (eliminating the overlooked cases) were prepared as Assistant Divisional Engineers/Electrical in B.P. Ms. No. 1045, dated 14-9-1977. Mr. T.K. Satyanarayanachary along with others have appealed to the Board for reconsideration and for restoration of promotion as Assistant Divisional Engineer. The matter has been examined by the D.P.C., in the meeting held on 6-4-1978, taking into consideration the latest confidential reports and recommended for promotion along with other passed over cases with their placements on promotion as Assistant Divisional Engineers. Thus, the recommendations of the D.P.C., have been approved by the Appointing Authority and the petitioner along with others were promoted in B.P.Ms. No. 284, dt. 15-10-1978. His appeal against adverse remarks in the confidential reports for the period ending 31-7-1972 were examined and he was informed that they do not require any change in Memo No. ADM/D.Disc./371-CRS/72, dated 3-9-1974. Whereas in the case of one Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao, Assistant Engineer, whose case was referred to in the affidavit contended that he was not communicated the adverse remarks and the contention of the Board that it cannot produce record at this distance of date was not accepted. Hence, he cannot compare with that of Mr. K. Srinivasa Rao. Further the petitioner had sent a legal notice through an advocate for restoration of his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Divisional Engineer/ Electrical. A reply to the said notice was sent, explaining the facts. Further, at the bar, the counsel for the A.P.S.E.B., argued that the writ petition is filed at belated stage with laches of more than 20 years. It is also not true to say that the petitioner's confidential reports, which were adverse to him were not communicated to him. On the other hand, the said adverse remarks in his confidential reports were communicated pertaining to the year 1971 and 1972 onwards which were taken into consideration for the purpose of selections to the higher post in the year 1977. However, the Corporation is not able to trace out those records and place the same before this court. To that effect an endorsement has been made by the officials of the Corporation for the perusal of this Court.
4. It is argued by Mr. Nagarjuna Babu Duba, though the petitioner is seeking restoration of his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineers from the year 1977, when his immediate juniors were promoted he had filed a writ petition only in the year 1998, for the reason that he had been making representations althrough and the same were rejected time and again. In fact, the first representation said to have been made by the petitioner on 4-1-1977 was not acted upon and immediately he could have worked out his remedies. Instead of doing so, the petitioner went on making representations to the respondents for about 20 years. The petitioner is an Engineer in the A.P.S.E.B., and it cannot be said that he does not know how to workout his remedies. The writ petition suffers from irretrievable latches, and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further the counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that he had adverse remarks when his case was considered by the D.P.C., in the year 1977 and it is strange to note that the D.P.C., which met in the year 1978 has recommended the case of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer by considering some material which was placed before the D.P.C., constituted in 1977, and as such, it must be deemed that the denial of promotion through the B.P.Ms. No. 1045, dated 14-9-1977, was arbitrary and illegal. It is difficult to accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is indeed, there is no material placed before this court to show that the confidential reports of the petitioner, for which year were not good, and what were really placed before the Selection Committee for the year 1977 and 1978 is also not available.
5. It is strange that the petitioner had not challenged either the selection process, which was finalised in the year 1977 nor he had filed any writ petition or proceedings before appropriate forum agitating his promotion from the year 1978 instead of the year 1977. It is too late to seek a mandamus directing the respondents to consider and restore the seniority of the petitioner w.e.f. 4-9-1977, the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted. The writ petition has no merits either on facts or in law and thus fails.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed but without costs.