IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 22189 of 2006 Between: B. Maheshwar, S/o. Jagannadha Rao, R.W.S. Division, Palamaneru, Chittoor Distrct. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt of A.P., rep. by its Prl., Secretary, panchayat Raj & Rural Development Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Engineer in Chief, Panchayat Raj, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendeing Engineer, R.W.S. Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4 G. Malleshwar Reddy, M.P. Obulavaripally, P.R. Sub Division, Kodur, Kadapa District. 5 S. Hyder, O/o. Superintending Engineer (PR), Kadapa, Kadapa district. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a Writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to O.A.No.6320 of 2006 and its order dt. 10.10.2006 of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal and quash the same and further declared that the G.O.Ms.No.385 and G.O.Ms.No.386 dt. 21.11.2005 are illegal and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and liable to be set aside the further declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in accordance with his eligibility and seniority and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.22189 of 2006 O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6320 of 2006 dated 10.10.2006 and consequently seeks a direction that the G.O.Ms.No.385, dated 21.11.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.386, dated 21.11.2005 are illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in accordance with his eligibility and seniority. 2. Petitioner joined the service as work Inspector Gr.III at Sathyavedu of Chittoor district in Panchayat Raj Engineering Department. He was promoted as Drauhtsman Gr.III and also further promoted as Draughtsman Gr.II on 25.12.1999. Petitioner was given the post as Incharge Deputy Executive Engineer on 15.9.2003 and was promoted/appointed by transfer as Regular Executive Engineer on 1.2.2004 and he holds Diploma which he has obtained from the State Board of Technical Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. In the method of appointment to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, 3 posts are earmarked for being filled by promotion from Assistant Executive Engineers and 1 post is earmarked for being filled up appointment by transfer from Assistant Engineers. In the cycle of 36 vacancies around 8 vacancies go to the feeder category of Assistant Engineers and 27 go in favour of Assistant Executive Engineers and only 1 vacancy would go in favour of the Draughtsmen. The cycle underwent amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.312 dated 17.8.2002. While so, respondents 4 and 5 who were working as Assistant Engineers made representations to the Government to revert them to the post of Draughtsman Gr.III notionally and promote them as Draughtsman Gr.II and Gr.I notionally. Their request was considered and Government issued G.O.Ms.No.385, dated 21.11.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.386 dated 21.11.2005 ordering to revert them as Draughtsman Gr.III and promoting them notionally as Draughtsman Gr.II and as Draughtsman Gr.I. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present O.A.No.6320 of 2006. 3. Heard both sides and perused the material made available on record. 4. While admitting the O.A. the following order was passed on 10.10.2006: “Issue Notices to Respondents returnable in four weeks. No interim orders are passed as the Learned Counsel for applicant submits that G.O.s, were already suspended by this Tribunal in another matter”. 5. From the above it is clear that the Tribunal admitted the O.A. 6320 of 2006 and issued notice to the respondents. Since G.O.Ms.Nos.385 and 386 were already suspended in another matter, the Tribunal did not grant any interim order. As the writ petition is filed against an interim order of the Tribunal, which was granted in the year 2006 and by now about two years have elapsed, we do not want to go into the merits of the case. However, we direct the Tribunal to dispose of the O.A. on merits, expeditiously It is represented that since the suspension granted became infructuous, we deem it appropriate to direct the parties to maintain statusquo till the disposal of O.A. 6. Accordingly Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________ C.V.RAMULU,J 9th June, 2008. PNV/KK To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK} THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.22189 of 2006 9th June, 2008