THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO. 13451 of 2010 16-06-2010 BETWEEN; Dr.M.L.Naidu son of M.Ch.Sivunnidu ...Petitioner vs. Dr.B.Sajeeva Rao and others. ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO. 13451 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The 1st respondent’s O.A.No.40 of 2010 was allowed by the orde dated 08-06-2010 of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal (Tribuna and as a consequence G.O.Rt.No.1683 dated 31.12.2009 was invalidate and along therewith the Full Additional Charge arrangement of th petitioner in the category of Principal, Dr.DRS Government Ayurvedi Medical College, Vijayawada, came to an end. The petitioner and the 1st respondent entered service in AYUSH a Lecturers, the petitioner earlier to the 1st respondent. However, the 1s respondent was promoted as a Professor Under Graduate (UG) Course and his services regularised in the said category w.e.f. 20-12-200 whereas the petitioner was so promoted i.e., as U.G Professor and hi services were regularised therewith w.e.f 01-06-2006. The petitioner i thus junior to the 1st respondent in the category of Professor, U.G Courses. The category post of Professor is inter alia a feeder category to th post of Principal of Ayurvedic College. After the regular principal demitte the office some time back, the official respondents herein could no process the regular appointment to the post and for administrativ convenience resorted to filling up the vacant post by FAC arrangemen Initially, by a memo dated 31-07-2009 the 1st respondent was placed as FAC Principal for a period of three months or till the post is filled up o regular basis, which ever is earlier. Subsequently, the Government issue G.O.Ms.No.1582 dated 09-12-2009 according permission to continue th 1st respondent as FAC Principal beyond the initial three months w.e 01.11.2009 or till the post is filled up on regular basis under F.R.49 Without any reasons vouchsafed, by the order in G.O.Rt.No.1683 date 31-12-2009 the petitioner was posted as FAC Principal of the Colleg assailing which, the 1st respondent preferred O.A.No.40 o 2010 before the Tribunal. As is apparent from the counter-affidavit filed by the Stat Government in O.A.No.40 of 2010, the General Secretary, APAMOA ha submitted a representation to the Hon’ble Minister for Health and Famil Welfare (the details of which are not on record). The Hon’ble Minister ha endorsed on the said representation “ please examine and circulate” Thereupon, the Commissioner, AYUSH informed the Government that th petitioner was senior to the 1st respondent in the category o Assistant Professor but was junior in the category of Professor. Th Government thereupon issued G.O.Rt.No.1683 (impugned before th Tribunal). The learned Tribunal while allowing O.A. by the 1s respondent held that for the category of Principal the category of Professo is the feeder category and not Lecturer and that the seniority among th Professors is alone relevant for appointment to the post of a Principal an further implied that since the 1st respondent was earlier appointed an accorded FAC Principal there was no reason to recant on that decisio and appoint the petitioner, particularly as the petitioner was junior t the 1st respondent herein. The learned Tribunal also recorde that the post of Principal being an administrative post calling upon a senio to work under a junior would be unjust and improper and that in th absence of any rational reason for so superseding a senior, there was n justification for appointing the petitioner herein as FAC Principal. Sri K.Ram Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner woul contend that the chances of promotion to the category of Professor U.G Courses in AYUSH are dependant on asymmetric opportunities fo Lecturers serving in different disciplines under AYUSH programme Lecturers in certain disciplines have higher choices of promotion as Professor while Lecturers of other departments do not. The Stat Government is contemplating following the practice in the A.P. Medica Service Rules and proposes amending the relevant Rules pertaining to th AYUSH to reckon seniority for appointment to the post of a Principal on th basis of total length of service. It is fairly conceded by Sri Ram Reddy, tha the Rules have not yet been amended. The factual matrix of the case on hand and the relevant statutor position reveals that the feeder category to the post of a Principa Ayurvedic College is inter alia the post of Professor U.G. Courses. Th post of Lecturer is not a specified feeder category. In the absence of an specific indication in the relevant Rules that the relevant seniority fo appointment to the post of Principal is the total length of service i.e reckoned from the initial recruitment category, rational interpretatio consistent with the relevant administrative law principles compels th inference that seniority in the feeder category is the relevant criterion eve if appointment to the post of a Principal is by a selection process. It woul be impermissible to reckon the seniority in the initial category posts in th absence of a specific rule to that effect. In fact if one is go by the contentio urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, this is the assumption of th State as well and that is why it is contemplating amendment of the Rules But till the Rules are amended and specifically and explicitly enjoin tha seniority in the category of Lecturer would be a relevant factor fo appointment to the post of a Principal, the executive arm of the State i disentitled to make appointments to the post of Principal whether regular o on a FAC basis on the basis of contemplated amendments to the rules The extant Rules are binding on the executive. This is the requirement o rule of law and of conformity with the Constitutional order. On the aforesaid analyses, this court discerns no infirmity in th order of the learned Tribunal dated 08-06-2010 allowing O.A.No.40 o 2010, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Ther are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 16TH JUNE 2010. TSNR