THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION NO.11564 of 2011 ORDER: (Per BPR,J) Heard Sri E. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of then petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services–I and Sri J. Sudheer, Sri D. Ramesh and Smt. K. Rajyalakshmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. At their request, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal since it arises out of the interlocutory proceedings pending before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The petitioners filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia seeking to assail the common order dated 07.04.2011 in V.M.A.No.501 of 2011 in O.A.No.468 of 2011 along with another O.A., whereunder the Tribunal modified the interim orders granted earlier and directed that any promotions made to the posts of the District Educational Officer or Deputy Director are subject to the result of the O.A. For convenience sake, the case turns around in regard to the claim for promotion by the petitioners where they are seeking declaration that all the promotions in pursuance of the 12 point cycle mentioned in Note-6 of Rule-3 of the A.P. Educational Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.505 dated 16.11.1998 are liable to be cancelled or reviewed in view of the orders in the earlier round in O.A.No.5025 of 1999 and O.A.No.6271 of 2001 dated 07.12.2001 and also in pursuance of judgment of this Court in W.P.No.537 of 2002 and batch, dated 10.01.2003, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.933 to 935 of 2004, dated 17.02.2010 and also the twin prayers to the fact that, the subsequent amendments made to Note-6 of Rule-3 and 12 points cycle thereunder of the rules framed in 1998 by G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 19.01.2011, whereby 9 points cycle was introduced to the extent and in so far as it provides slots 1, 4 and 8 to the Deputy Educational Officers and slots 2 and 6 to the Assistant Directors as being illegal. On a bare reading, prima facie, it tells on the petitioner themselves that in one way they are trying to seek a relief, but set at naught the promotions for the promotions of the District Educational Officers in pursuance of the earlier rule which is prior to the amendment under 12 points cycle and then also, in assailing the subsequent amendment in G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 19.01.2011 introduced in 9 points cycle as illegal. There is no dispute to the fact that the earlier principle of 12 points cycle, no doubt, was set aside by the aforesaid proceedings as to confirm after the Supreme Court. Necessarily, no doubt, it follows that subsequent to the very principle and the basis is knocked of, whatsoever the action that has been taken or the promotions affected in pursuance of such 12 point cycle mentioned under Note-6 of Rule-3 of the said rules of A.P. Education Service Rules had to be set aside straightaway rather than having any second thought or second look. There is no question of any going into the correctness or assessing such all those promotions which were affected following the aforesaid 12 points cycle. However, such exercise is being called both at the instance of the petitioner and on behalf of the respondents, as if, a review need to be gone through for ringing back to an earlier decision, prior to any such exercise following 12 points cycle and to give effect to the 9 points cycle as per the subsequential amended provision under G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 19.01.2011. Be that as it may. If really the petitioners are aggrieved that the respondents are not implementing or nor carrying out or not staying to house in order in respect of the contrary acts which are crept in, in the teeth of the pre-amended position, the remedy lies elsewhere either approaching the Tribunal itself for contempt or to seek any relief to which they are entitled to under the law but stand apart from any other relief which could have been sought by the petitioners. The petitioners simultaneously are also seeking that even the 9 points cycle as amended under G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 19.01.2011 also need to be set at naught on certain grants as urged in the main O.A. Be that as it may. The petitioners claim at interlocutory stage is for a direction not to undertake promotions for the post of District Educational Officer or Deputy Director, pending disposal of the O.A. Necessarily it means that even there should not be any implementation in pursuance of the amended provisions of the situation under G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 19.01.2011 introducing 9 points cycle. Initially the Tribunal granted the stay orders, but ultimately after contest by the respondents, it was modified to the effect that the promotions made are subject to the result of O.A. No doubt that could have been the proper order in the fitness of the case, but however one fact, which surrounds at both the petitioners and as well as the respondents, is that the question of fresh exercise under G.O.M.s.No.4 dated 19.01.2011 could not possibly be taken up unless and until, as already stated above, the house is set in order, namely the promotion, which may not have been given or which have been given as pointed out on behalf of the respondent in the earlier position after all 12 points cycle mentioned under Note-6 of Rule-3 of the rules. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents would be entitled to be or even the petitioners could have been provided with a promotional exercise even in pursuance of the amended situation by following 9 points of cycle. It is not the case of either the respondents, namely, the contesting respondents or even the authorities through the learned Government Pleader that having regard to the set at naught the entire rule position in 12 points cycle, in view of the orders of the Tribunal as confirmed by this Court and also by the Supreme Court, they have done any exercise by maintaining themselves by not taking any such action, they cannot try to come in seal of approval nor seek validity of any such terms which have been given under the 12 points cycle. In the absence of any such follow up action taken, the question of giving effect to or implementing the amended 9 points cycle, is wholly misconceived. In the circumstances, it is felt desirable that the main O.A. is to be taken up and disposed of at the earliest and leaving it open for both the parties to raise all the questions before the Tribunal including as to the entitlement of certain relief in the O.A. etc., on merits and in accordance with the law after giving opportunity. Since we have observed that as long as the earlier situation is set at naught, the fresh light under the new sun cannot make an entry and therefore, we are of the view that till the disposal of the main O.A, the respondents shall maintain status quo and the Tribunal is directed to take up the O.A. and dispose the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from today. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _________________ (B.N. RAO NALLA, J) 30th April, 2011 SP THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA (The Order of the Bench Delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) WRIT PETITION NO.11564 of 2011 April, 2011 SP