THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.24523 of 2011 Dated:02.09.2011 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, And others. …Petitioners and Sri K.Malla Reddy, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.24523 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The writ petition is filed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.7712 of 2007 passed a year and seven months ago on 11.02.2010. The first respondent is a post graduate in Telugu. He appeared in the competitive examination conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) in 2001 for the post of Junior Lecturer. He scored very good marks in General Studies and Telugu Optional papers, but he was awarded zero marks in the interview out of fifty marks. He filed O.A.No.9072 of 2002. It was allowed and a direction was issued to conduct a separate interview for him. An interview was conducted and he was appointed vide orders dated 29.04.2004. In the list of candidates communicated by the APPSC, he was placed at serial No.4. However, in the seniority list of the Junior Lecturers of the year 2001, he was pushed out. He, therefore, filed O.A.No.7712 of 2007 for a declaration that the action of the respondents therein in not granting the service and monetary benefits like increments, revised pay scales, seniority and promotion etc., on par with the 2001 selected candidates as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the petitioners herein to grant all those benefits. By impugned order, the learned Tribunal disposed of the Original Application directing the petitioners herein to give the benefit of seniority to the applicant in accordance with the merit of 2001 selection and further directed to give seniority, if any of his juniors are promoted. Government Pleader for Services – I submits that though the order is very clear that the applicant is not entitled to any monetary benefit, he approached the Tribunal by filing C.A.No.64 of 2009 seeking monetary benefit. The ultimate directions issued by the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.7712 of 2007 are contained in paragraph 7 of the order. The relevant portion reads as under. …as the applicant has been selected and appointed and, in view of the revised seniority and merit list being furnished by the A.P.Public Service Commission in 2001 selection and, as the applicant stands at Sl.No.4 in the selection list, the respondents have to give the benefit of seniority to the applicant in accordance with the merit of 2001 selection and consequently, if any Junior appointed pursuant to the said selection has been promoted, the applicant will not be entitled for any monetary benefit but he will only be entitled to seniority according to the merit of 2001 selections as communicated by the A.P.Public Service Commission and he will be entitled for notional benefits from the date of his Junior having been appointed pursuant to the said selection merit list published and accordingly the respondents are directed to fix the seniority of the applicant in accordance with the merit list published by the A.P.Public Service Commission, and also to give notional benefit and promotion on par with his junior, if any promoted to the next higher post. A reading of the above would show that the learned Tribunal very clearly gave a declaration that the first respondent herein will not be entitled for any monetary benefit, but he will be only entitled to seniority according to the merit of 2001 selections as communicated by the APPSC. Therefore, apprehension canvassed in the writ petition as well as put forth before us is misconceived. The learned Tribunal has correctly restricted the relief only to the notional benefit denying the monetary benefit, though the first respondent in the Original Application asked for monetary benefit as well. The writ petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ____________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 02.09.2011 vs