IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5095 of 2000 Between: K.Srinivasulu S/o.K.Raghavulu North Sikkim, Mangan, Sikkim State. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India, Rep.by its Secretary to Government Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Chief Secretary to Government General Administration Department, Secretariat, Saifabad Hyderabad. .....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 more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Certiorari (a) calling for the records relating to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.599/1999, Dt.28/4/1999 as erroneous consequently direct the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the above OA in merits of the matter and also records relating and connected with the proceedings No.22012/89/95- AIS(I), Dt.28/ 29-07-1998 of the 1st respondent, and quash or set aside the same, holding them arbitrary, unjust and improper, b) consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to carefully ascertain the rotation of candidates liable to be allocated to the cadre of the State Andhra Pradesh and allot the petitioner herein as an Insider to the cadre of the State of Andhra Pradesh for the 1994 batch of direct recruit Indian Administrative Service Officers and also call for the records relevant and connected with, and pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5095 of 2000 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Swaroop Reddy) This writ petition is filed against the order, dated 28-04-1999, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) in O.A.No.599 of 1999. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a native of Andhra Pradesh and he belongs to Scheduled Caste community. He having acquired Graduation in Engineering appeared for the Civil Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in the year 1993. The petitioner states that in the said examination, in all, six candidates were selected from the State of Andhra Pradesh, out of whom, two candidates belong to reserved categories while four other candidates belong to open category. Amongst the two candidates belonging to the reserved categories of the State of Andhra Pradesh, he secured higher rank than the other. In the over all merit ranking also, he secured 8th rank amongst the candidates belonging to reserved categories. It is stated that each State based upon its cadre strength would be identifying and notifying the number of vacancies to be filled up by way of direct recruitment through the Union Public Service Commission nearly one year ahead, so as to complete the process of direct recruitment and make available the candidates selected for appointment by the time vacancies are available. The petitioner also states that while he was undergoing training at Lal Bahadur Sastry National Academy of Administration at Mussorie, the Academy has circulated the distribution of vacancies between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ as well as the broad principles of allocation of the candidates. Out of the four posts in Andhra Pradesh, it was indicated that only one would be liable to be filled up by an ‘insider’ while the remaining three are liable to be filled up by the ‘outsiders’. By a communication dated 18-01-1995, the Lal Bahadur Sastry National Academy of Administration, Mussorie has informed the probationers of 1994 batch about their allotment to the respective cadres as was determined by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi, vide Fax message dated 12-01-1995. As per the said notice, he was allotted as ‘outsider’ to Sikkim cadre. Pursuant to the said notice, he submitted a detailed representation on 08-03-1995 requesting the 1st respondent to reconsider the decision with regard to his allocation to the cadre of Sikkim State and denying him the right to be allocated in Andhra Cadre. However, the 1st respondent rejected the same through communication, dated 02-05-1995. Again, the petitioner submitted another representation on 02-06-1995. But, the said representation was not disposed of, therefore, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1285 of 1995 before the Tribunal contending that his case was not considered properly between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’. The Tribunal, vide order dated 04-03-1998, while setting aside the orders dated 12.01.1995 and 02.05.1995, directed the respondents to reconsider the representation dated 02.06.1995 submitted by the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order of the Tribunal, the 1st respondent considered and rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 02.06.1995 vide proceedings Fr.No.22012/89/95-AIS (2), dated 28/29.07.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present O.A.No.599 of 1999 before the Tribunal. When the said O.A. was listed for admission, the Tribunal sought clarification from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain the said O.A. It is the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that as per Rule 6(2) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, (for short ‘the rules’) which deals with the place of filing of application, the petitioner is entitled to approach the said Tribunal as he has applied for the post when he was in Andhra Pradesh. Hence, in view of Rule 6(2) of the Rules, the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to dispose of the case. It is further submitted that previous O.A.No.1285 of 1995 was entertained by this Tribunal and the subject matter is in continuation to the direction given in that O.A. Therefore, the petitioner can approach the Tribunal for the said relief. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after considering the material available on record, held that Rule 6(2) of the Rules has no application to the case on hand as the cause of action has not arisen in the jurisdiction in which the petitioner is now placed. He has not been allotted to Andhra Pradesh cadre and he is now working in the Sikkim Cadre, the question of deciding the issue rests with that Tribunal which had jurisdiction over the place in which the petitioner is now posted i.e. Sikkim. The decision is also to be taken by the Department of Personnel at New Delhi. The Tribunal further held that at the time when the previous O.A. was filed, the applicant was a resident of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, his case was entertained at Hyderabad, just because that case was entertained, the Tribunal would continue to have jurisdiction to decide the case of the petitioner subsequently also. Further, it cannot be said that the present relief is a continuation of the direction given in the earlier O.A. As the case of the petitioner was rejected for posting in the Andhra Pradesh, he has to approach appropriate authority of the Home Ministry at Delhi for getting appropriate relief. Hence, the question of entertaining the present O.A. by the Tribunal does not arise. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has not properly ascertained the rotation of vacancies in the Indian Administrative Service Cadre strength of A.P. since 1985 resulting in an erroneous treatment of an ‘Insider’ vacancy as an ‘outsider’ vacancy. In that view of the matter, a direction can be issued to the 2nd respondent to rectify the said error. As the 2nd respondent falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal in Hyderabad, the adjudication of the O.A. is well within its territorial jurisdiction. According to the petitioner, earlier he has filed O.A.No.1285 of 1995 and that was entertained and as such, the present O.A. has also to be entertained at Hyderabad. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Solicitor General contended that the earlier O.A. was filed while the petitioner was at Hyderabad and as he was allotted to Sikkim Cadre, the Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present O.A. filed by the petitioner. At the first instance, the petitioner filed O.A. 1285 of 1995 while he was residing in Andhra Pradesh and later he filed O.A. 599 of 1999 while he was residing at Sikkim. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain the present O.A. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner and there are no grounds to interfere with the same and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed not on merits but on the point of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner is at liberty to file fresh proceedings at appropriate place. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 07-07-2009 Prv