IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10103 of 2008 Between: G. Nagaraju, s/o. Sri Veera Venkata Subrahmanyam, R/o. D.no. 27/88, Patha Ramannapeta, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Comissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Urdu Hall Lane, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Krishna, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatna, Krishna District. .....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 a writ of certiorari calling for records pertaining to OA No. 162 of 2005 which was disposed of by the Hon'ble AP Administrative Tribunal by its Order dated 30-7-2007 and to quash the same by declaring that the petitioner is entitled for inclusion in the panel of 1972 and that he is further entitled to all consequential monetary benefits and to further declare the action of the respondent No. 2 in rejecting the petitioner's representation by order 24-8-2005 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SIVA S.LANKA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.10103 of 2008 O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.7.2007 in O.A.No.162 of 2005 on the file of A.P.Administrative Tribunal rejecting the claim of the petitioner to include his name in the panel for promotion from the year 1972 and all consequential benefits. The petitioner was appointed as LDC in the year 1961 ie., 21.8.1961 and his services were regularized on 13.12.1961. His services were confirmed with effect from 1963 and he passed the required Accounts Test for promotion in the year 1973 for further promoted as UDC. The controversy that has arisen in the orders preceding the filing of the O.A.No.162 of 2005 are with regard to G.O.Rt.No.1042, G.A.(Ser-A) dated 15.6.1966 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, GAD Department. The District Collector cum Special Officer in the year 1977 gave promotion as UDC on 21.3.1978. After several representations the petitioner filed O.A.No.1977 of 1997 before the Tribunal seeking the inclusion of his name in the panel of 1972 and for notional promotion from 1972 with consequential benefits. The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A.by order dated 25.2.2003 directed the respondents to dispose of his representation. When no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner was constrained to file a contempt application for non- compliance of the orders. The Tribunal closed the same on the assurance of the respondents. The petitioner filed the present O.A.No.162 of 2005 challenging the rejection of his representation vide orders dated 24.8.2005 of the respondents. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on the ground that the claim was belated and that the petitioner was not qualified to be included in the year 1972 as he had subsequently acquired the requisite qualifications. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner was appointed as LDC on 21.8.1961 and his services were regularized from 3.12.1961. He passed Accounts Test for Local Body employees in the year 1973 and his services were regularized w.e.f.21.3.1978 in the cadre of Senior Assistant and he attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.1996. The petitioner’s name was not included in the panel since he did not acquire the requisite qualification of passing of Accounts Test on 1.9.1972 and that subsequently in the year 1977, a panel was prepared and the applicant’s name was included and he got promotion as UDC on 21.3.1978. Thereafter he did not move his little finger till he retired from service in the year 1996. It seems in the first instance he filed O.A. in the year 1997 and thereafter the present O.A. in the year 2005. Under those circumstances, as the claim of the petitioner is highly belated one, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the O.A. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 9th June, 2008. PNV/KK To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{CHP} THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.10103 of 2008 09th June, 2008