THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO W.P.No.11526 and 11547 of 2011 COMMON ORDER (Per Sri Ghulam Mohammed, J) Since both these writ petitions arise out of the common order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.Nos.1588 and 6792 of 2008 with M.A.No.1262 of 2010, dated 09.02.2011, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who belongs to SC Community, was selected and appointed as an Assistant Executive Engineer through APPSC in the year 1992 in Panchayat Raj Department. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.508, dated 18.07.2007 bifurcating the Panchayat Raj Department into Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department (PR & RD) and Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department (RWS & S). As per the said G.O., the formula of roster-point of 3-6-9 posts has been identified for sending the employees to the Panchayat Raj Department to newly created RWS & S Department after taking options from them. The petitioner states that as he opted for Panchayat Raj department by mistake, he submitted a representation to consider his case for permanent allocation to newly created RWS & S Department. The respondents have not considered the same on the ground that he opted for Panchayat Raj Deparment. While so, the Government changed its policy decision and issued a memo dated 29.11.2007, to send the employees, who have opted to Panchayat Raj Department, to RWS & S Department on deputation, without following any roster i.e., 3-6-9 and the rule of reservation. He states that though he was placed at Sl.No.29 of the Tentative Seniority List of the respondents, without considering his case, the respondents are considering the case of one Sri K.Narasimha Rao, Assistant Executive Engineer, who belongs to SC Community, was placed at Sl.No.112 and had opted for RWS & S Department, for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer. He further states that the respondents have considered the case of few engineers, who opted initially for Panchayat Raj Department, but changed their option subsequently to the RWS & S Department and promoted them as Deputy Executive Engineers. Hence, the petitioner filed O.A.Nos.1588 and 6792 of 2008 before the Tribunal seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not considering his case to allocate him permanently to newly created RWS & S Department on par with other candidates, and not following the roster i.e., 3-6-9 and the rule of reservation while bifurcating P.R.Department into PR & RWS & S Department, as illegal and arbitrary, respectively. The Tribunal based on the proceedings dated 14.12.2007, which were issued consequent to re-organization, creation of separate Panchayat Raj Engineering Service and Rural Water Supply Engineering service, opined that once the option has been exercised, the same becomes final and accordingly, it dismissed both the O.As. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petitions. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have not followed the roster-point and the rule of reservation as per G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 18.07.2007, and thereafter, the Government with a different approach issued a memo dated 29.11.2007. He submitted that the petitioner submitted a revised option on 04.01.2008 to the respondents and the same is pending consideration and therefore, a direction may be given to the respondents to consider the same. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development submitted that when once the option was given by the petitioner, it becomes final. 6. Since it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revised option dated 04.1.2008, given by the petitioner is pending consideration, without going into the merits of the matter, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the said revised option of the petitioner in accordance with law. 7. With the above direction, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date:13.06.2011. sj