HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P. No. 20786 of 2011 DATED: 26.07.2011 Between:- K. V. Ramanaiah .. Petitioner A N D The Govt. of A.P. and two others .. Respondents O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The petitioner asserts that he has been working as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, in the office of the 2nd respondent- Commissioner since 2005. It is stated that with respect of fixation of seniority in various cadres right from his initial entry into services, in the zonal seniority list of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers of Zone – VI issued in the Notification Gazette No. 823 dt.02.12.2005, which was the final seniority list, his name stood at S.No.52. Incidentally, it could be evidenced from the said seniority list that the same was finalized without following the quota rota system between the direct recruitees and rank promotees as the names of promotees were shown at a stretch up to S.No.34 and from 35 onwards the names of direct recruitees of 1978 Batch Assistant Commercial Tax Officers were shown. Based on the said seniority list, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in 1989. In the subsequent seniority list of D.C.T.O. of Zone – VI, his name was shown at S.No.130 and subsequent integrated State-wide seniority list of D.C.T.O., his name was shown at S.No.494. Similarly, at the initial stage of finalization of final seniority list of Commercial Tax Officer issued in Notification No. 22A, dated 12.01.2005, his name was shown at S.No.519. As the above seniority list was the subject mater of several rounds of litigations before the Tribunal, this Court and the Apex Court, the 2nd respondent-Commissioner, based on certain guidelines, issued a provisional integrated seniority list of CTOs on 23.08.2010 in which his name appeared at S.No.505. While so, it is stated that the 1st respondent issued a Memo dated 21.05.2011 directing the 2nd respondent-Commissioner, to place the draft seniority list before the review DPC as required under Rule 24(a) of A.P.S. & S.S. Rules, 1996 and send recommendations of the DPC to the Government for finalization of the C.T.O. seniority list. The copy of the draft seniority list would disclose that the name of the petitioner has been shown at S.No.549. Thereafter, the 1st respondent-Government, based on certain guidelines, issued another Memo dated 29.06.2011 directing the 2nd respondent to scrutinize the panels of A.C.T.Os. of Zone VI published in the A.P. Gazette No. 823 dated 02.12.2005, and rectify the defects pointed out and duly pushing down the Rank Promotees below the Direct Recruit Candidates. Then, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 6004 of 2011 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to finalize the consequential steps and final decision arrived at in pursuance of the proceedings issued in Memo dated 29.06.2011 before any further steps taken in pursuance of the proceedings issued in Memo dated 21.05.2011 were finalized. Along with the application, the petitioner also sought an interim direction to the 3rd respondent to consider his case for appointment as Deputy Commissioner / Incharge Deputy Commissioner on ad hoc basis in one of the 7 existing vacancies. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the Tribunal, by order dated 20.07.2011, except admitting the I.A. and ordering notice to the respondents, has not given interim directions to the respondents for consideration of his case for appointment as Deputy / Incharge Deputy Commissioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. Either to grant or not to grant interim direction, suspension or stay of any proceedings is purely the prerogative or discretion of the Tribunal. In the instant case, inasmuch as the Tribunal has neither rendered any decision on the interim relief for consideration of his case for appointment as Deputy Commissioner / Incharge Deputy Commissioner on merits nor adjudicated the rights of the parties, and the matter is seized by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the case at this juncture. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent - Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad to dispose of O.A. No. 6004 of 2011 expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks from today after affording reasonable opportunity to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to put forth their version. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 26.07.2011 _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Note: Furnish copy in two days B/o bcj