HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Writ Petition No.1704 of 2007 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The petitioner by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of Mandamus inter alia assailing the correctness of the orders, dated 14.12.2006, passed by the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal) in O.A.No.882 of 2000 and also the correctness of the proceedings, dated 26.05.1998, issued by the first respondent, and consequently, to declare that he is entitled to promotion to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from the date on which the third respondent was promoted, with all consequential benefits. Briefly stated the facts of the case necessary for disposal of the present writ petition at the present stage are that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 02.05.1987 in the revenue unit of Warangal District by the Selection Committee and later on, he was promoted as a Senior Assistant on 18.06.2001 and since then he has been working as such. However, the third respondent, who was initially appointed on temporary basis as a Section Writer and later on, transferred to the office of the first respondent in the year 1995 and was converted as a Junior Assistant on 07.01.1997, was promoted as Senior Assistant on 26.05.1998, by overlooking the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed the O.A., before the Tribunal. The O.A., filed by the petitioner came to be heard and disposed of with connected O.A.No.5496 of 1998 by the Full Bench of the Tribunal as required under the Rules, since it involved interpretation of Presidential Order. Ultimately, the Tribunal, by taking into account the facts in O.A.No.5496 of 1998, disposed of the present O.A., by its order, dated 14.12.2006, laying down certain principles as to the constitution of an Unit. It is stated that in the Registration Department, Unit is a District within the Zone and therefore, the petitioner vis-à-vis the third respondent stands together and the petitioner is entitled to be promoted. It is also stated that these aspects were not considered on merits and there is no reference to the facts of the case in the present O.A., and the other relevant aspects with regard to the petitioner and the third respondent. Thus, it is stated that there is no consideration at all in the impugned order about the petitioner’s case nor is there any categorical finding as to why he should not be given the benefit, which he sought for. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that his case needs to be considered from the proper perspective, especially in view of the facts stated in the present O.A., rather than the facts applicable to another case i.e., O.A.No.5496 of 1998, which absolutely have no semblance or similarity. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the material on record, especially the order passed by the Tribunal, dated 14.12.2006, we are of the view that no doubt there is ample reference to the facts in O.A.No.5496 of 1998 and ultimately the result is with regard to the relief sought for in the said O.A., rather than the facts in the present O.A., i.e., O.A.No.882 of 2000 or considering the same or giving any finding as such. In the circumstances, it is felt desirable that the matter requires fresh disposal in accordance with law by providing opportunity to both sides. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order in O.A.No.882 of 2000, dated 14.12.2006, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside only to the extent of the petitioner alone and the Tribunal shall dispose of the O.A., on merits in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity to both the parties. We also make it clear that we are not addressing nor expressing any opinion on the questions, which have been decided by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in the impugned order. No costs. ______________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) Date:08.09.2010 VGB