IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.18344 OF 2009. Between: The Commissioner of Social Welfare Department, Hyderabad and others. .. Petitioners And B.Rajinamma ..Respondent ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V.Afzul Purkar) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.11.2008 in O.A.No.6498 of 2007 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent herein approached the Tribunal with a grievance that her case is not being considered by the petitioners herein for absorption as Social Welfare Officer, Grade- II, on par with other similarly situated persons. The complaint of the petitioners is that during the hearing before the Tribunal, she was successful to demonstrate that there are several other officers, who were similarly situated as the applicant and who have not been absorbed as Social Welfare Officer, Grade - II. The Tribunal below, in Para No.12 of its order has considered each of the said individual’s case of other officers and in comparison has found that the case of the applicant stands on different footing and, as such, found that there is discrimination and that on account of the discrimination and the method of pick and choose adopted by the petitioners for absorption, the applicant’s case was not considered for absorption. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the applicant / respondent herein is entitled to similar treatment and should be considered for absorption on par with other similarly situated persons. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services and Sri S.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The learned Government Pleader tried to justify the action of the petitioners on the ground that the first applicant i.e., the respondent herein was merely on deputation and has not completed five years of service. But the direction to absorb the services of the other applicants could not have been justified. It is evident from Para No.14 of the order of the Tribunal that even the said aspect was considered by the Tribunal and it was noticed that among the similarly situated officers who were absorbed also were on deputation but, without any objection, they were absorbed as Social Welfare Officers, Grade-II. The finding of the Tribunal that there is apparent discrimination as recorded in the impugned order is clearly justified and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error warranting interference of this Court in our certiorari jurisdiction to the impugned order and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR, J September 3, 2009. AMD/CVRK