HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.32450 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 11.11.2010, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.4495 of 2010, in so far holding that the petitioner is not entitled for promotion to the post of Prohibition and Excise Inspector in the panel year 2009-2010 and to declare the said order as illegal and arbitrary. In the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, it is averred that the petitioner was initially appointed as Prohibition and Excise Constable on 12.11.1984 and subsequently, his services in the cadre of Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector were regularized with effect from 01.07.2008, and his name was figured at Serial No.44 in the seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector in Zone-III. While so, two persons namely Devara Srinivasa Rao and M.Bhujanga Rao filed O.A.No.378 of 2010 before the Tribunal seeking to consider their case for promotion to the post of Prohibition and Excise Inspector and also sought a direction not to consider the case of the petitioner herein for promotion to the said post as he has not completed three years of service in the feeder post. The Tribunal placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.627, dated 21.12.1983, disposed of the said O.A. by its order, dated 11.03.2010 holding that the persons who have completed two years of service can be considered for promotion to the next higher category and thereby, held that the petitioner herein is not entitled for consideration for promotion to the promotional post of Prohibition and Excise Inspector as he has not completed two years of service in the category of Prohibition and Excise Sub- Inspector. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing a Rev.M.A.No.1024 of 2010 seeking review of the order, dated 11.03.2010, passed in O.A.No.378 of 2010, but the same was dismissed. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that as on 01.07.2010, he has completed two years of service in the post of Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector and became eligible to be promoted as Prohibition and Excise Inspector, in spite of the same, as his case was not considered, he was constrained to file O.A.No.4495 of 2010 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the said O.A., initially, granted interim order in favour of the petitioner herein. However, finally, the Tribunal allowed the said O.A. in part holding that the action of the official respondents in trying to promote the petitioner in preference to the direct recruitees is bad under law and that the petitioner is not eligible for promotion for the panel year 2009-2010; that the unofficial respondents are seniors to the petitioner as they completed three years by 01.11.2010, and as such, their case can be considered for promotion. Hence, the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Special Rules prevail over General Rules being later in point of time. In support of the same, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maya Mathew V. State of Kerala and others[1]. He further contended G.O.Ms.No.627, dated 21.12.1983, contains a non- obstante clause and as such, it is to be given priority, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maya Mathew’s case (cited supra); that the Tribunal erred in not taking into consideration the non-obstinate clause and also erred in law in holding that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal holding that the order passed in the earlier O.A. is per in curium; and prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Sri J.R.Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents-respondents 4 and 5 contended the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order inasmuch as Rule 4(g) of A.P. Excise Service Rules was amended under G.O.Ms.No.453, Rev., dated 30.05.1997, which provides that a person should have completed three years of service in the post of Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector to be eligible to be promoted to the post of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector; that the petitioner herein does not satisfy the said condition and as such, his claim was rightly negatived by the Tribunal. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. In the instant case, as per the Adhoc rule framed in G.O.Ms.No.627, dated 21.12.1983, the minimum period prescribed was two years for the purpose of promotion. Subsequently, Special Rules came into force in 1997 prescribing three years minimum period for promotion. As such, the Special Rules prevail over the Adhoc Rules, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in V.Subba Rao and others V. Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Govt., of A.P.[2]. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially appointed as Prohibition and Excise Constable and as such, he is a promotee for promotion to the post of Prohibition and Excise Inspector. His services in the post of Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector were regularized with effect from 01.07.2008 i.e., as on 01.07.2010, he has completed only two years of service in the said post. Further, respondents 4 and 5, who are the direct recruitees completed three years of service as on 01.11.2010, whereas the petitioner completes three years of service as on 01.07.2011. In that view of the matter and for the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality and irregularity in passing the impugned order calling for interference by this Court. The Tribunal considered the case in a right perspective having regard to the adhoc rules, special rules and non-obstante clause of the relevant Rules and rightly allowed the O.A. filed by the petitioner in part with certain observations. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED ___________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR​ 14th July 2011 DR [1] (2010) 4 SCC 498 [2] (1996) 7 SCC 626