IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos: 8910 and 9167 of 2009 WRIT PETITION No: 8910 of 2009 BETWEEN: 1. The District Panchayat Officer, Vizianagaram 2. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Employment, A.P. Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND G.N.R.S.P. Syamala Kumari, Senior Assistant, O/o the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon’ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.4816 of 2003 dated 29.10.2008 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES - II Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K. RAM REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 9167 of 2009 BETWEEN: 1. The District Panchayat Officer, Vizianagaram 2. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Employment, A.P. Hyderabad. 3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND G.N.R.S.P. Syamala Kumari, Senior Assistant, O/o the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon’ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.5687 of 2006 dated 29.10.2008 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES - II Counsel for the Respondents: MR. K. RAM REDDY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) During the hearing of the vacate stay petitions by consent of both the parties, the writ petitions are being disposed of by the following order. 2. The writ petitions are directed against the common order in O.A.No.4816 of 2003 and O.A.No.5687 of 2006 dated 29.01.2008. 3. The respondent herein filed O.A.No.4816 of 2003 questioning the action of the petitioners herein in overlooking her case for appointment by transfer to the post of Extension Officer, Rural Development, Panchayat Raj and for consequential direction to appoint her to the said post from the date of which her junior is appointed. In the said OA there was an interim direction dated 25.07.2003 to consider the case of respondent herein for the post of Extension Officer. In compliance with the said interim direction the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj considered the case of the respondent herein and rejected the same by order dated 17.03.2006. Questioning the said order, the respondent herein filed O.A.No.5687 of 2006. Both the said OAs were considered and disposed of by a common order impugned herein whereby the OAs were allowed granting same relief to the respondent herein as was granted to the applicants in O.A.No.7148 of 2001 and batch dated 29.09.2006 and it was further directed to consider her case as Extension Officer, PR & RD within a period of two months as per rules. The said order is questioned by the petitioners in these writ petitions. 4. By order of this Court dated 28.04.2009, while admitting the writ petition the impugned order of the tribunal was suspended for a period of four weeks. Now the respondent herein, who is the applicant before the tribunal, had moved an application seeking to vacate the aforesaid order. 5. We have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent herein. 6. We are of the view that the tribunal has not independently examined the claim of the respondent and has merely directed that the respondent shall be entitled to the same relief as was granted to the applicants in O.A.No.7148 of 2001 and batch dated 29.09.2006. A copy of the order of the tribunal in O.A.No.7148 of 2001 and batch goes to show that the issue involved in the said batch of OAs was whether the Government was competent to revise the seniority list and the same was answered in negative and OAs were accordingly allowed. The said batch of OAs, therefore, related to the settlement of seniority list in the cadre of Junior Assistants and the relief claimed in the present OAs by the respondent is regarding consideration of her case to the post of Extension Officer and as such, the scope of the present OAs and the relief claimed being entirely different, the impugned order was passed granting the same relief to the respondent as is granted in O.A.No.7148 of 2001 and batch and a further direction to consider her case to the post of Extension Officer is granted, without considering her case and without assigning any reason. Perhaps, the said error is contributed by the learned counsel for the applicant, who requested the tribunal to pass the same order as in O.A.No.7148 of 2001 and batch, without realizing that the scope and the relief in the present OA is different. 7. It is, therefore, clear that the operative portion of the order of the tribunal impugned herein, which directs the same relief to the respondent herein as in O.A.No.7148 of 2001 and batch, appears to be totally erroneous, as the issue involved in that batch of OAs and the present OAs is entirely different. Consequently, as no reasons are mentioned while giving further direction to consider the case of the respondent with reference to the relief claimed by her is concerned, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit both the OAs for fresh consideration of the tribunal, in accordance with law, on merits. The tribunal is requested to hear both sides on merits and pass appropriate orders in the OAs, without being influenced by any observations made by us in this order, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed and the OAs are remitted to the tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 27, 2009 DSK