THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.15525 OF 2002 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The Government of A.P. issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.76, Irrigation & (CAD.SER.I) Department, dated 27.04.1995, in exercise of powers under Rule 47 of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Subordinate Service Rules relaxing Rule 6 thereof in favour of respondents 1 to 8 and others in order to enable them to get their services regularised in the category of Draughtsman Grade III from the date of the said order. Respondents 1 to 8 herein filed applications being O.A.Nos.6425 of 1995 and batch. By the time the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.76, all of them were promoted as Draughtsman Grade III. They, therefore, perceived prejudice to their interests after the relaxation is granted to certain individuals with effect from the date of the said G.O. It was mainly contended before the Tribunal that Rule 6 read with Schedule 2 of the Special Rules requires a pass in special examination for certificate in Civil Engineering in Government Technical Examination to be eligible for promotion as Draughtsman Grade III and above and therefore, those with the qualifications of ITS Certificate cannot be granted relaxation. The plea found favour with the Tribunal. The Tribunal noticed that the contesting respondents herein were already promoted as Draughtsman Grade III and therefore, G.O.Ms.No.76 granting relaxation from the date of issue of the said order is unsustainable. Accordingly, the same was set aside directing the Government to take consequential action after giving appropriate notice to the affected parties. Respondents 9 and 10 herein subsequently were impleaded as they would also be vitally interested in the result of the Writ Petition. The ninth respondent appears to have filed WP.No.5589 of 2001. Following the order in O.A.No.6425 of 1995 and batch, the same was allowed on 14.08.2001. When the order was not implemented, the ninth respondent filed Contempt Application being C.A.No.282 of 2002. At that stage, the Government, the Engineering-in-Chief and the Superintendent Engineer filed the instant Writ Petition on 14.08.2002 only to pre-empt the Tribunal from taking any action under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Curiously, orders passed in the other O.As are not assailed and the order in O.A.No.6425 of 1995 alone is assailed in this Writ Petition. We have heard the Assistant Government Pleader for Services II for the petitioners and M/s. S.Satyam Reddy and Sri B.Devanand for the contesting respondents. We have perused the order of the Tribunal. In coming to the conclusion that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.76 without application of mind, the learned Tribunal observed as under. It is necessary to state here that the Government have been under a wrong impression that the LCE is minimum qualification required for being posted as Draughtsmen. Particularly G.O.Ms.No.76 Dated 17.04.1975 states “as per the special rules for A.P.E.S.S. the qualification prescribed for the post of Civil Draughtsmen Grade-III is LCE diploma”. The Government had considered that it was essential qualification for being appointed as Draughtsmen Grade-III. It is not known why this relaxation order is issued when it is not stated rule 6 that LCE is a minimum qualification. In fact under schedule II referred to in rule 6 ITI is a minimum qualification (Item No.ix indicated at page No.339 of Volume-IV). The Government have issued quite a few relaxation orders to different individuals. The question of relaxation will not arise if one goes through the relevant provisions in schedule II. It is difficult for us to believe that the Government authorities even without reading the rule meant to be relaxed have issued the relaxation orders. It is necessary that concerned authorities look into this matter and avoid such mistakes in future. The reasoning is unexceptionable. Further, it is brought to our notice that the orders of the Tribunal have been implemented and the Government chose to file the Writ Petition after more than five years after disposal of the O.As only when the ninth respondent filed Contempt Application. This is one of the reasons, which compels non-interference with the well-considered order of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 13th October 2011 RRB