1

Date: 14.07.2023
From To
J. Mohan Naik, M. Tech., The Secretary to Govt.
Chief Engineer (R&B), T, R&B Department,
Rural Roads, Block No. 05, AP Secretariat,
Room No. 203, R&B Head Office, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Errum Manzil, Hyderabad. Guntur District, AP.

(Through Proper Channel)

Respected Sir,
Sub: Establishment (R&B) Department – J. Mohan Naik, Chief Engineer (R&B) –
Objections submitted - On Provisional Seniority list of Executive Engineers and
Superintending Engineers (R&B) for the period from 2002 –2003 to 2006 – 2007 –
Communicated – Placed on website “roadbuild.telangana.gov.in” –Reg.
Ref: 1. Circular Memo No. 061018/Ser. I(2)/2022, dt:17.05.2023 of CE
(R&B)(Admn& QC), Telangana.
2. My representation dt: 29.05.2023 & 31.05.2023 and personal discussion with
Secretary to Govt., T, R&B dept. on Dt: 30.05.2023 & Dt: 04.07.2023.
*****
In continuation of my representation vide reference 2nd cited and personal discussion held with
Secretary, it is further submitted that, the Secretary to Govt. T R&B desires to submit further
clarification with regards to implementation of ROR with consequential seniority and also received a
message from his peshi that there is a discussion on seniority dated: 14.07.2023.
In this connection, I further submit the following few lines for your kind consideration and
implementation of ROR with consequential seniority with proof of evidence as detailed below.
1) The GOI vide OM No. 20011/1/2001-Estt(D) MoPPG&P Dept. of Personnel and Training
dated: 21.01.2002 under para 3 has decided to negate the effects of the DOP&T OM dated
30th January, 1997 by amending Article 16(4A) of the Constitution right from the date of
its inclusion in the Constitution i.e. 17th June, 1995, with a view to allow the Government
servants belonging to SCs/ STs to retain the seniority in the case of promotion by virtue
of rule of reservation. In other words, the candidates belonging to general/ OBC category
promoted later will be placed junior to the SC/ ST Government servants promoted earlier
even though by virtue of the rule of reservation.

2) Accordingly, the erstwhile Govt. of AP have issued G.O. Ms. No. 5 Social Welfare (SW.
ROR.1) Dept dated: 14th February, 2003. Wherein para “d” categorically states that the
Reservation in promotion in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be
prospective and shall be made applicable to the posts to be filled up. As on the date of
issue of these orders the Panel year for 2002-03 has already commenced from 1 st
September, 2002 and therefore the panels already prepared and given effect shall not be
disturbed. The Panels which are not yet prepared shall now be prepared based on rule of
reservation in promotion and Panels prepared and not given effect to, shall be reviewed
on the principle of reservation in promotion in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes.
Contd..2
 2

3) The Asutosh Misra, IAS and Chairman of the Committee have recommended that, “after
detailed discussions and keeping in view the aforesaid rule position, case laws and above
all the import of the judicially evolved concept of 'consequential seniority', observed that
the existing provisions of rule 33(a) and 33(b) of the APS&SS Rule s, 1996, adequately
ensure the 'consequential seniority' of SC / ST candidates appointed by promotion /
transfer basing on the policy of reservation, as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.26, SW (ROR)
Department, dt.20-2-2009. Therefore, the Committee felt that there is no need to amend
further the APS&SS Rules, 1996 In this regard.”

4) Since 2002-2003 onwards the TR&B Department have regulated the policy of reservation
with consequential seniority and many people got benefitted and retired from the service,
but incidentally whenever the E-in-C Admin. took the Chair they will first touch the
Seniority issue to their wisdom and alter the entire list which is already settled way back
vide G.O.Ms. No. 47 T,R&B (Ser.I) Dept. Dated: 14.05.2012 and G.O.Ms. No. 62 T,R&B
(Ser.I) Dept. Dated: 18.07.2013.

5) Yes, some of the Engineers approached the Hon’ble APAT with some grievances, but
nobody challenged the promotions made duly applying ROR with consequential seniority
since twenty (20) years, but the APAT has set aside the above G.Os with minor changes of
the Petitioner.

6) Accordingly, the then E-in-C Sri Gangadharam have prepared a revised list and submitted
to the Government for further approval with minor modifications as per the APAT order
where the ROR with consequential seniority clearly allowed and no courts have
commented on application of ROR with consequential seniority.

7) Further, the then E-in-C Sri Rajeev Reddy have also submitted revised proposal to the
Government based on the advice of GA Dept., Law Dept. and Advocate General keeping
in view of Common Order of Hon’ble High Court and placed before the “Empowered
Committee”.

8) The Empowered Committee have gone through the methodology adopted by the
administrative department in determination of adequacy of SCs / STs in each panel year
in each cadre and the implementation of Rule of Reservation in promotions in respect of
SCs / STs. The Empowered Committee observed that the adequacy and guidelines in
implementation of Rule of Reservation in promotions with consequential seniority in
respect of SCs / STs are in accordance with the orders issued by the Govt. in this regard
and suggested the T, R&B Dept., for placing of the statement in Annexure-I before the
Hon’ble High Court in WP. No. 10128/2020 dt: 19.06.2020 and Department is directed to
take further necessary action in compliance with the orders of Hon’ble High Court in this
regard and submit the year wise panels of all higher cadres accordingly to place the matter
before DPC.

9) Suddenly, the TR&B Dept. rather taking necessary further action to place before the DPC,
have taken ‘U’ turn and again started cheating with “Catch up” theory concept and
creating mental disturbance among the Employees without any bases illegally which can’t
stand before Court of Law.
Contd..3
 3

10) Para 4 (c ) of G.O. Ms. No. 5 states that, “The existing 100 point roster already prescribed
in Rule 22 of the APSS Rules by the State Govt. shall be followed in cases of promotion
in all the categories where reservation in promotion in favour of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes is followed”.

11) Further, some of the mischievous frequently projected the question in determining
adequacy/ inadequacy is that they are calculating the percentage as below
For example:
Sl. Initial Recruitment as Promoted to “A” Promoted to “B” from
No. per Roster for 25 (cadre strength 10) the feeder category of
vacancies “A”
(Cadre strength 8)
1 1 1 2 (SC)
2 2 (SC) 2 (SC) 7 (SC)
3 3 3 8 (ST)
4 4 4 11
5 5 5 12
6 6 6 13
7 7 (SC) 7 (SC) 14
8 8 (ST) 8 (ST) 15
9 9 9 The RP no. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6
10 10 10 are retired, hence sl. No.
11 11 SC = 2/10 = 20% > 15% 2, 7 and 8 became 1, 2
12 12 ST = 1/10 = 10% > 6%
and 3 in “B” and the
13 13 juniors from Sl. No. 11 to
14 14 15 picked up and given
15 15 seniority from 4th point to
16 16 (SC) *The calculation in 8th point
17 17 piece meal is not
18 18 correct. It helps in
19 19 wrong projection
only.
20 20
21 21
22 22 (SC)
23 23
24 24
25 25 (ST)

Category -A : 100 point roster is followed while promoting from initial category to A.
The percentage of SC is 20% > 15% and ST is 10% > 6% got the promotion based on
Roster Points. Even if it is considered as per RP the percentage appears higher side, but it
will be adjusted till it filled to 100 points. But, if the percentage is worked out to cadre
strength and determining the adequacy, definitely it looks more than the prescribed
percentage.

Category -B : While effecting promotion for cadre strength 8, the feeder category of A
shall move to B, but incidentally other than SC/ST i.e. RP. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 retired from the
service, in such case the left over RP 2, 7 & 8 will automatically occupy the position at sl.
No. 1, 2 & 3 and the balance 4 to 8 needs to be picked from the initial category/ A category
as per General rules.

Contd..4
 4

Thus, if the cadre strength is taken as 8, then the calculation is as below:

SC = 8 x 15% = 1.2 (Say 1); ST = 8 x 6% = 0.48 (Say 1)

As per feeder category ‘A’ to ‘B’

SC = 2 nos became 1 and 2, ST Sl. No. at 8 became no. 3 by virtue of feeder category/
seniority as per Rule 33 (a) & 33 (b). They are entitled to be the Senior among
subsequently promoted candidates.

Therefore, the determination of SC/ST percentage in each cadre strength is not correct
because the Roster Point is considered for 100 and the determination of SC/ST shall also
be done to 100 only, otherwise it shows in excess.

In view of the above, it clearly shows that, the determination of percentage of

SC/ST with respect to cadre wise will help only to determine inadequacy, but the candidate
who promoted as per Roster Point in application of ROR with consequential seniority, it
will definitely show higher percentage than what is specified. Hence, piece meal
calculation is not correct which is illegal and mis represent the fact.

Therefore, it is requested the Government that the Panels prepared by the then
E-in-C duly following ROR with Consequential Seniority which is scrutinized by the
Empowered Committee and directed the R&B Dept. to place before the DPC for taking
forward may please be followed strictly and set aside the said provisional seniority list
communicated vide circular Memo. No. 7718/VC(Ser)/2023, dt: 17.05.2023 read with
Circular Memo No. 061018/Ser.I(2)/2022 dt: 17.05.2023 of CE (R&B), Admin. Telangana
and E-in-C AP and No ‘U’ turn may be allowed please, since the Article 16 (4A) is enacted
by the Parliament strictly for effecting the Consequential Seniority with retrospective
effect and issued order by the DOPT very clearly at Para(1) indicated above may please
be followed and do justice to the deprived community.

Yours Sincerely

(J. Mohan Naik)

Chief Engineer (R&B)
Rural Roads
Telangana, Hyderabad