IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.NOs.4869, 20004, 20025, 22359 of 2004, 1021 of 2005 and 15425 of 2008 WRIT PETITION No : 4869 of 2004 Between: G.S.V.V.S.S.V.Prasad S/o.G.Brahmaiah Tribal Welfare, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Principal Secretary t Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary to Government, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 4 Ch.Chinna Babu, Deputy Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare presently working as Incharge Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an order or direction, more in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the orders passed in O.A.No.1824, of 1997 dated 6.11.2003 on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and declare the same as void abinitio, null and void and nonest in the eye of law, and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to repatriate the 4th respondent to his parent department, by declaring his continuation in Tribal Welfare Engineering Department as illegal, bad, arbitrary and unconstitutional by holding that the 4th respondent is junior to the petitioner in the category of Deputy Executive Engineer for the purpose of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in Tribal Welfare Engineering Department. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.SURYA KARAN REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES II WRIT PETITION NO : 20004 of 2004 Between: P.K.Nageswara Rao, s/o P.V.Subbaiah, Tribal Welfare Sub-Division, Seethampet, Full Additional Charge Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare Division, Srikakulam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Prl.Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Secretary to Government, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Engineer, Tribal Welfare, A.P.,Hyderabad. 4 Sri Ch.Chinna Babu, Tribal Welfare, presently working as Incharge Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paderu, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an order or direction, more in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the orders passed in O.A.No.4649 of 1997 dated 6-11-2003, (rendered along with O.A.No.1828 of 1997 and batch) on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and declare the same as void abinitio, null and void and nonest in the eye of law, and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to repatriate the 4th respondent to his parent department, by declaring his continuation in Tribal Welfare Engineering Department as illegal, bad, arbitrary and unconstitutional, by holding that the 4th respondent is junior to the petitioner in the category of Deputy Executive Engineer for the purpose of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in Tribal Welfare Engineering Department and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.SURYA KARAN REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES II WRIT PETITION No : 20025 of 2004 Between: M. Veera Reddy, S/o. Narasimha Reddy, Tribal Welfare Sub-Division, Sudimalla, and Full Tribal Welfare Division, Bhadrachalam, R/o. Old I.T.D.A. Quarters, Cherla Road, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., rep. by its Secretary to Govt., Tribal Welfare Dept.,Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3 Sri Ch. Chinna Babu, Dy. Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Presently working as Incharge Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Padaru, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an order or direction, more in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the orders passed in O.A.No.1828 of 1997 dt. 6.11.2003, on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and declare the same as void abinitio, null and void and nonest in the eye of law, and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to repatriate the 3rd respondent to his parent department, by declaring his continuation in Tribal Welfare Engineering Department as illegal, bad, arbitrary and unconstitutional, by holding that the 3rd respondent is junior to the petitioner in the category of Deputy Executive Engineer for the purpose of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in Tribal Welfare Engineering Department. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.SURYA KARAN REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR SERVICES II WRIT PETITION NO : 22359 of 2004 Between: P.K. Nageswara Rao, S/o. P.V. Subbaiah, Tribal Welfare Sub-Division, Seethampet, Full Addl. Charge Executive Engineer, Tribal Welafare Division, Srikakulam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., rep. by its Prl. Secretary to Govt., Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyd. 2 The State of A.P., rep. by its Secretary to Govt., Tribal Welfare Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Engineer, Tribal Welfare, A.P., Hyderabad. 4 Sri R.N.S. Rama Rao, Deputy Executive Engineer & Full Addl. Charge Executive Engineer,Tribal Welfare Division, Badragiri, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the orders passed in O.A. No. 6644 of 1997, dt. 6.11.2003, ( rendered along with O.A.No. 1828 f 1997 and batch) on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and declare the same as void abinitio, null and void and nonest in the eye of law, and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to repatriate the 4th respondent to his parent department, by declaring his continuation in Tribal Welfare Engineering Department as illegal, bad, arbitrary and unconstitutional, by holding that the 4th respondent is junior to the petitioner in the category of Dy. Executive Engineer for the purpose of promotion to the post of executive Engineer in Tribal Welfare Engineering Department. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.SURYA KARAN REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES II WRIT PETITION No: 1021 of 2005 Between: G.S.V.V.S.S.V. Prasad, S/o. G. Brahmaiah, Tribal Welfare, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary to Government, Social Welfare (TW-Ser-II- 1)Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3 Ch. Chinna Babu, Deputy Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Presently working as Incharge Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the orders passed in O.A. No. 8466 of 2001 dated 6-11-2003, rendered along with O.A.No. 1828 of 1997 and batch, on the ﬁle of the ﬁle Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and declare the same as void abinitio, null and void and nonest in the eye of law, and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to repatriate the 3rd respondent to his parent department, by declaring his continuation in Tribal Welfare Engineering Department as illegal, bad, arbitrary and unconstitutional, by holding that the 3rd respondent is junior to the petitioner in the category of Deputy Executive Engineer for the purpose of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in Tribunal Welfare Engineering Department. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.SURYA KARAN REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE WRIT PETITION No : 15425 of 2008 Between: 1 G.S.V.V.S.S.V.Prasad S/o.Late G.Brahmaiah Hindu Circle Visakhapatnam 2 T.Venakateswara Rao S/o.T.Ramaiah Hindu Tribunal Welfare Circle Hanumakonda,Warangal District 3 M.Veera Reedy S/o.Narasimha Reddy Hindu (Incharge) o/o.Engineer-Chief Tribunal Welfare D.S.S Bhavan Masab Tank Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of A.P rep.by its Secretary Social Welfare Department Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Chief Engineer Tribunal Welfare Engineering Department Government of A.P Telugu Samkshema, Bhavan Masab Tank Hyderabad. 3 Sri Ch.Chinna Babu S/o.Narayana Hindu Tribunal Welfare Engineering Service Paderu Visakhapatnam District .....RESPONDENTS 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 an order or direction to issue an order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring order made in O.A No.7323 of 2007 dt.7-3- 2008 of the Hon'ble A.P Administrative Tribunal,Hyderabad as illegal arbitrary contrary to law and unconstitutional. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.SURYA KARAN REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: (per GM,J) Since all these writ petitions arise out of a common order, they are being disposed of together. W.P.No.15425 of 2008 is ﬁled seeking a mandamus declaring the order dated 07.03.2008 passed in O.A.No.7323 of 2007 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. The rest of ﬁve writ petitions are ﬁled seeking mandamus declaring common order dated 06.11.2003 passed in O.A.No.1828 of 1997 and batch by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential direction to the oﬃcial respondents to repatriate the unoﬃcial respondent-Ch. Chinna Babu to his parent department i.e., Panchayat Raj Engineering. The brief facts of the case are that the unoﬃcial respondent, who worked as Deputy Executive Engineer in Panchayat Raj Engineering Department, has been absorbed into the Tribal Welfare Department, vide G.O.Rt.No.969, dated 09.10.1995, in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer. The petitioners, who are working in Tribal Welfare Department, were promoted as Deputy Executive Engineers on 04.05.1995 i.e., prior to the date of absorption of the unoﬃcial respondent, and their probation was also declared vide G.O.Rt.No.768,dated 25.11.1996. Thus, the unoﬃcial respondent has no right to claim his seniority over and above the petitioners in Tribal Welfare Engineering Department in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer. While so, the common order, dated 06.11.2003, passed in O.A.No.8466 of 2001 (rendered along with O.A.No.1828 of 1997 and batch), ﬁled by the unoﬃcial respondent, holding that the unoﬃcial respondent was deemed to be an approved probationer and his case to be considered for the post of Executive Engineer, was suspended by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.26288 of 2004 in W.P.No.20025 of 2004, dated 03.11.2004. By an order dated 21.03.2003 in O.A.No.7243 of 2007, the Tribunal has categorically held that the regularization of the petitioners in the category of Assistant Executive Engineer is in accordance with law and the proposal to cancel the same vide Government memo dated 05.10.2001 was bad and also upheld their dates of regularization in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer and consequently, directed the oﬃcial respondents to consider their cases for promotion as Executive Engineers on that basis. When the said judgment was challenged by the Government and some others, this Court directed to maintain status quo in W.P.M.P.No.28341 of 2002 in W.P.No.22590 of 2002, dated 19.11.2002. Thereafter, the unoﬃcial respondent ﬁled O.A.No.7323 of 2007 with VMA Nos.38 of 2007 and 14 of 2008, and the same was disposed of on 07.03.2008, directing that the oﬃcial respondents are at liberty to make incharge arrangements in the post of Superintending Engineer by taking the length of service in the cadre of Executive Engineer and eﬀect promotions on incharge basis, as the dispute about the seniority in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer is pending and the said promotions have to be reviewed in accordance with the orders passed by this Court. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Tribunal, without appreciating the factual aspects and ignoring the existing interim orders of this Court pertaining to seniority in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer, erroneously held that there is a dispute as on today in respect of seniority in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer and also erred in directing the oﬃcial respondents to make incharge arrangements to the post of Superintending Engineer by taking the seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineer i.e., the promotion date in respect of the petitioners and the date of absorption of the unoﬃcial respondent in Tribal Welfare Engineering Department. Hence, the writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that since the petitioners are approved probationers in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer, they are entitled to further promotion as per their seniority, whereas the unoﬃcial respondent, who was absorbed from Panchayat Raj department, has to take the last place in the Tribal Welfare Department. He further contended that the absorption of the unoﬃcial respondent was contrary to the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules) and as per Rule 33 of the Rules, seniority has to be reckoned from the date of commencement of probation. Therefore, the orders passed by the Tribunal are erroneous since there is no ﬁnal seniority list in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer. On the other hand, learned counsel for the oﬃcial respondents contended that the unoﬃcial respondent is appointed by the Public Service Commission, whereas the petitioners have been appointed through employment exchange and since he approached the Tribunal by ﬁling O.A.No.8466 of 1997 to make further promotions, the Tribunal has rightly considered the matter. Learned counsel for the unoﬃcial respondent contended that the petitioners cannot challenge the absorption of the unoﬃcial respondent into Tribal Welfare Department, since the seniority list has not been prepared in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer. He also contended that the Tribunal ordered in almost all the cases to make further promotions on incharge basis. He further contended that the unoﬃcial respondent is working in Tribal Welfare Department since nine years on incharge basis and because of administrative reasons, they have not declared his probation, and that the Tribunal has rightly considered his case. By common order dated 06.11.2003 in O.A.Nos.1828 of 1997 and batch, the Tribunal observed as under: “After due consideration of the submissions in the 4th OA, since there are vacancies of the post of Executive Engineer, since the applicant in the 4th OA is deemed to be an approved probationer in the Panchayat Raj Department, even before coming to the Tribal Welfare Department, it cannot be said that his case cannot be considered for promotion. So, a seniority list should be prepared since 1996, if already not prepared, by preparing year wise panels and considering the vacancy position, the case of the applicant in the 4th OA has to be considered and necessary orders should be passed with notional seniority from 1996 as per rules within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. However, this order does not preclude the authorities from considering the cases of the applicants in the ﬁrst three OAs and the applicant in the last OA for being further promoted, by including their names in the year wise panels, if their services were regularized. Accordingly, all the O.As are disposed of. MAs stand disposed of”. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the orders impugned, since there is dispute with regard to the ﬁnal seniority list in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer, we deem it appropriate to modify the order passed by the Tribunal directing the authorities concerned to prepare final seniority list in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer by taking into consideration the objections from all the concerned after giving notice and opportunity to them and eﬀect promotions on the basis of such ﬁnal seniority list in each panel after preparation of year wise panel. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such ﬁnal seniority list and year wise panel is prepared, status quo as on today shall be maintained. All the Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________________ GULAM MOHAMMAD, J ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 29.08.2008 sj