THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.Nos.7180, 7181 and 7182 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) Since all these writ petitions are filed against the common order, they are being taken up for disposal by this common order. 2. W.P.Nos.7180, 7181 and 7182 of 2010 are filed against the common order, dated 22.12.2009, passed in O.A.Nos.5107 of 2007, 5615 and 3200 of 2004 respectively, by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal). 3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in O.A.No.5107 of 2007, are as follows: The first respondent, who is the Assistant Engineer, was declared as surplus employee in the Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Rural Irrigation Corporation Limited (APSCRICL) (for short ‘the Corporation’) by its Managing Director vide letter, dated 10.09.1999. Subsequently, the second petitioner-District Collector, Warangal, deployed the services of the first respondent to the Transport Department vide proceedings, dated 31.01.2003, with a condition that he should he placed below the regular candidates. The Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad, directed the first respondent to undergo training from 28.01.2003 to 17.02.2003 intimating his appointment as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in the respondent Department. Thereafter, vide letter, dated 16.02.2003, the Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad, repatriated the first respondent to his previous employer on the ground that to accommodate him, Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Inspector Special Rules needs amendment, which is pending with the Government. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed W.P.No.14645 of 2000, which was disposed of on 08.08.2003 with a direction that the Surplus Manpower Cell in Finance Department shall consider the case of the first respondent for sponsoring his name to the Transport Commissioner for being appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector pending any modifications to the Rules, if any required, within a period of six weeks from the date of the said order. Since the said order was not complied with, the first respondent filed C.C.No.85 of 2004 and the same was dismissed on 26.06.2004 granting liberty to him to question G.O.Ms.No.2903 dated 23.12.2003, against which, he filed O.A.No.3200 of 2004, in which the Tribunal, after due consideration of the order, dated 18.08.2003, passed in W.P.No.14645 of 2000, disposed of the same on 26.05.2004 with a direction to the first petitioner to sponsor the name of the first respondent for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months from the date of the said order. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.7182 of 2010. As against the order dated 08.08.2003 passed by this Court in W.P.No.14645 of 2000, the first petitioner filed SLP No.7938 of 2004 before the Supreme Court, which in turn disposed of the same on 25.05.2006 observing that ‘if similarly situated persons already have been accommodated, the State may consider the case of the first respondent on sympathetic manner’. Thereafter, the first respondent made a representation, dated 14.06.2006, to the Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad, but, no action has been taken thereon and as such, he filed W.P.No.8350 of 2005 before this Court and the same was disposed of on 20.07.2006 directing the first respondent to approach the Tribunal. Pursuant to the same, he filed O.A.No.6201 of 2006 before the Tribunal, which in turn issued interim direction on 28.09.2006, to the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent in compliance of the directions of the Apex Court in SLP No.7938 of 2004 dated 25.05.2006 for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said order. Thereafter, the first petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.4290 dated 08.12.2006 rejected the case of the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, he again filed O.A.No.5107 of 2007 before the Tribunal and the same was allowed vide common order, dated 22.12.2009. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.7180 of 2010. The first respondent also filed O.A.No.5615 of 2004 seeking to direct the first and second petitioners to keep one vacancy of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector under the Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad in pursuance of Notification No.13/2004 under P.C.No.10 dated 24.09.2004 till the claim of the first respondent is considered and the same was allowed by the Tribunal vide common order, dated 22.12.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.7181 of 2010. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the petitioners, Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Sri M. Ratna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services II vehemently contended that as the petitioner is a voucher payee employee in the Corporation, he is not eligible for appointment as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in Transport Department as per Section 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Absorption of Employees of state Government Public Sector Undertakings into Public Service Act, 1997. He further contended that the first petitioner, following the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7938 of 2004 dated 25.05.2006 and in compliance of the directions of the Tribunal in O.A.No.6201 of 2006 dated 28.09.2006, rejected the claim of the first respondent. He further contended that the cases of the other employees were considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors as they are regular employees of the Corporation and as the case of the first respondent is not similar to them, the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 prohibits such appointment to him. He also contended that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in giving a positive direction and thus, he prays to allow all the writ petitions. 6. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Sri M. Ratna Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the first petitioner issued G.O.Ms.No.275, dated 14.12.1995, asking the Departments to take clearance from the Surplus Manpower Cell in Finance Department for filling up of vacancies in the Government Departments, and that as on the date of the said G.O., the first respondent was declared as surplus employee and is eligible for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in Transport Department. He further contended that though the petitioners considered the case of similarly situated employees by taking into consideration the Act 14 of 2007, they rejected the case of the first respondent, and therefore, the same is illegal and arbitrary. He further contended that the Apex Court after hearing the matter, elaborately passed the order dated 25.05.2006 in SLP No.7938 of 2004 directing the first petitioner to consider the case of the first respondent in a sympathetic manner if similarly placed persons have already been accommodated, and pass appropriate orders, but the first petitioner rejected the case of the first respondent on the ground that he is a voucher payee employee. He also contended that the first respondent is not a voucher payee employee because his services have been regularized by the Corporation with effect from 01.12.1999 and that the Tribunal has elaborately discussed the matter and passed the order impugned and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the same. 7. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal suffers from any illegalities or infirmities warranting interference by this Court. 8. We have perused the material on record. Admittedly, the first respondent was sponsored by Surplus Manpower Cell in Finance Wing to Transport Commissioner for being appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector and consequently he had undergone training from 28.01.2003 to 17.02.2003. Based on the said fact, this Court in W.P.No.14645 of 2000 dated 08.08.2003 directed the Surplus Manpower Cell in Finance Department to consider the case of the first respondent for sponsoring his name to the Transport Commissioner for being appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector pending any modifications to the Rules, if any required, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Thereafter, pending the proceedings in C.C.No.85 of 2005 filed by the first respondent, the first petitioner issued G.O.Ms.No.2903 dated 23.12.2003 rejecting his case and therefore, the said CC was closed granting liberty to him to question the same before the Tribunal, and accordingly, he filed O.A.No.3200 of 2004. The Tribunal while dismissing the same on 26.05.2004, directed the first petitioner to sponsor the name of the first respondent for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from that date. By the time of disposal of Civil Appeal No.7938 of 2004, which was filed against the order dated 08.08.2003 in W.P.No.14645 of 2000, no appeal is filed by the petitioners against the order dated 26.05.2005 in O.A.No.3200 of 2004. However, the Apex Court directed the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent in a sympathetic manner, as that of similarly placed persons, who were accommodated, and permitted the first petitioner to file the writ petition. Subsequently, the first petitioner rejected his case vide G.O.Ms.No.4290 dated 08.12.2006 for appointment as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in Transport Department as he is a voucher payee employee of the Corporation. 9. Admittedly, the services of the first respondent have been regularized with effect from 01.12.1999. It is not in dispute that the second petitioner has sponsored the name of the first respondent to the Transport Department for being appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector as per G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.02.1995 and the first respondent had undergone training along with others from 28.01.2003 to 17.02.2003. From this, it is clear that his case for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector be considered by the petitioners. The Apex Court has already directed the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector along with other similarly situated employees. 10. Having regard to the above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has gone through the entire material on record and rightly passed the order impugned, which need not be interfered with by this Court since we do not find any illegality or irregularity in it. In the circumstances, we direct the petitioners to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal in the order impugned, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the above direction, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:13.04.2010. sj