HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.Nos.3867, 3874 and 14344 of 2000 Date: 25-03-2011 W.P.No.3867 of 2000: Between: K. Harinath ……. Petitioner and The Government of A.P. and others …… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.Nos.3867, 3874 and 14344 of 2000 COMMON ORDER: (Per BPR, J) Since these three writ petitions are filed assailing the very same orders in the common proceedings between the parties, hence, they are taken up together for disposal. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.3867 and 3874 of 2000 are the unsuccessful applicants in O.A.Nos.562 of 1992 and 698 of 1992 filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, assailing the validity of the impugned proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.980, Food and Agriculture (Mktg.II) Department, dated 13-11-1991, G.OMs.No.150, Food and Agriculture (Mktg.II) Department, dated 28-01-1992 and D.O. letter, dated 18-01-1992. The petitioner in W.P.No.14344 of 2000 is also one of the similarly placed employee as Assistant Engineer who also seeks to assail the very same order in O.A.No.698 of 1992, dated 28-01-2000. In these three writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek for a writ of Certiorari assailing the aforesaid orders, dated 28-01-2000 disposing of both the applications with certain directions. The usual controversy as is being invoked for quite sometime passed in various services, viz., the dispute between the graduates and diploma holders, is once again a racking issue in these proceedings. The petitioners are working as Assistant Engineers having been appointed at various points time in the Marketing Department and they are governed by the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and livestock) Market Rules, 1969 and also by the Special Rules for Central Market Fund Service issued in G.O.Ms.No.407, dated 31-08- 1984. Their services fall within Group-I of the engineering service and out of 10 categories contemplated they fall under category-4. There is no dispute in regard to the provisions concerning the promotions as contemplated, both from the graduates and also diploma holders. The entire controversy started only after sanction of 40 posts in G.O.Ms.No.586, dated 25-10-1986 and in filling up the said posts to the extent of 25, out of which 13 were being graduates as per the proceedings, dated 16-08-1990. The main claim of the petitioners is to the effect that having regard to the fact that they are graduates and in view of the ratio fixed as such for the purpose of promotion at higher level, they need to be considered accordingly. Whereas the entire action post G.O.Ms.No.586 is totally contrary thereof and, in fact, initiation of any action in favour of only diploma holders is wholly misconceived and contrary to the Rules. These applications were contested by the respondents herein on various grounds and supported the entire impugned action further reiterating that the promotions, which are being given to the contesting respondents, would not in any way affect the claim of the petitioners or their seniority. After taking into consideration the respective submissions and the pleas set forth, the Tribunal taking note of the respective claims and as such, has taken note of the fact that it had passed interim orders directing the respondents to prepare the seniority list of the persons in the various committees spread over the State and till the seniority lists are prepared, the appointments to any of the posts of Deputy Executive Engineers was stayed, irrespective of the services which they fall within. Subsequently also, there have been directions on 11-07-1994 and 26-08-1994 reiterating the preparation of seniority list of both the categories of diploma engineers and graduate engineers and to fill up the post of Deputy Executive Engineers in the proportion prescribed under the Rules. However, when the matter came up for final disposal, it was not known whether any such exercise was done or completed. Therefore, taking into account the consequential fact that no promotions could possibly have been effected, both the applications were allowed directing the respondents to consider the cases of the diploma engineers also, who are qualified and have put in requisite number of years of service for further promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineers, in accordance with the ratio prescribed under the Rules i.e., 3:1 while considering the cases of the graduate engineers and accordingly, modified the earlier interim orders, dated 11-01-1994 and it was observed that the respondents are at liberty to fill up the posts of DEEs in accordance with the above directions. Having regard to the aforesaid directions, all the petitioners in these three writ petitions were making grievance since it would affect their right, title and entitlement since any such action in favour of the diploma engineers would come in the way of their further promotions apart from adding other surmountable difficulties. On both the sides, elaborate submissions were made by taking us through the entire chequred events. However, after giving due consideration to these submissions and also the fact as observed by the Tribunal itself in regard to the preparation of seniority list for both the categories of diploma engineers and graduate engineers and consequent action which needs to be taken, it cannot be said that there is any grievance as such as long as no such seniority list is finalized and any promotion is being given placing reliance thereon. Therefore, it is now premature to have any say or to visualize any action on the part of the respondents herein especially on the face of such directions given which, if followed, would take into consideration the respective claims in accordance with the Rules and prepare the seniority list which enable them to take further consideration for promotion. Therefore, as long as this entire exercise is not completed even at this stage, the very writ petitions as have been filed and framed are totally premature and it would be an exercise in futile and purely academic to go into all such questions as long as there is no cause of action as such either individually or together. In view of the aforesaid reasons, leaving open for the parties to avail any remedies as available under the law, in the event of any grievance either on the seniority list or on any action taken thereon or otherwise, which necessarily had to be disposed of independently on its own merits uninfluenced by any of the observations in these proceedings, the three writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:25-03-2011 YCR