IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO : 4103 of 2009 Between: V. Subhash S/o. V. Tirumal Rao O/o. Commissioner Information and Public Relations Department, A.P., Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government of A.P., General Administration, I & P.R. Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Special Commissioner, I & P.R. Department, AC Guards, Hyderabad. 3 M. Pramod Rao S/o. & Age not known O/o. Speical Commissioner, I & P.R. Department, AC Guards, Hyderabad. 4 A. Subhash Goud S/o. & Age not known I & P.R. Department, AC Guards, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the posts of Additional Director and Director on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits and consequently direct the official respondents to convene a review DPC forthwith and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Director and Director with all consequential benefits and consequently stay the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Director until and unless the above exercise is carried out by the official respondents and consequently declare that non passing of the order by the Hon'ble APAT as indicated above in O.A.No.3280/2009 dated 25.02.2009 as contrary to law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.No.4103 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the posts of Additional Director and Director on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits and consequently direct the official respondents to convene a review DPC and consider his case for promotion to the said posts. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Joint Director since 1995 and on 31.3.1997 he was issued a charge memo framing certain charges and enquiry was commenced. The charge memo was culminated into his reversion to lower cadre vide G.O.Ms.No.617 dated 20.8.2007 and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A.No.5103 of 2007 and the Tribunal quashed the reversion orders vide orders dated 12.3.2008. Questioning the order of the Tribunal, the official respondents filed W.P.No.16189 of 2008 and the same was dismissed on 11.8.2008. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.6214 GA (SC-D) Dept., dated 27.10.2008 dropping the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. During the interregnum period from 1997 to 2008 respondents 3 and 4, who are juniors to the petitioner, were promoted as Director and Joint Director respectively. The petitioner filed the present O.A.No.3280 of 2009 to direct the official respondents to consider and promote him as Additional Director and Director of Information and Public Relations on par with his juniors, respondent Nos.3 and 4, in view of the orders in W.P.No.16189 of 2008 and the O.A. was admitted and the following interim relief was granted on 25.02.2009: “Pending further consideration, the respondents are directed to convene the Review DPC to consider the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of Additional Director within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, notwithstanding the pendency of disciplinary proceedings.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted a direction to the respondents to convene Review DPC for filling the posts of Additional Director and Director, since Juniors to the petitioner were promoted and the Tribunal instead of directing to hold the Review DPC to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotions to the posts of Additional Director and Director, directed to convene the Review DPC to consider the claim of the petitioner only for promotion to the post of Additional Director. Further, he contended that DPC was convened on 21.2.2009 and the fourth respondent was promoted as Director vide G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 28.02.2009. Hence, he prays to modify the interim order passed by the Tribunal by directing the respondents to convene the Review DPC to consider the case of the petitioner for both the posts of Additional Director and Director on par with his juniors, respondents 3 and 4. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Services II appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that since the petitioner is working as Joint Director, first he has to claim for promotion to the post of Additional Director and then only next promotion of Director would arise and the claim of the petitioner for promotion to both posts as Additional Director and Director is untenable. 5. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the very writ petition itself is not maintainable as the Tribunal has already granted interim relief to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Director. 6. It is seen from the impugned order that the Tribunal while admitting the O.A., has granted interim order directing the official respondents to convene the Review DPC to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Director within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, in the G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 28.02.2009, it was made clear that the promotion of the fourth respondent is subject to the directions/ outcome of the O.As/W.Ps/W.As/R.Ps/C.As etc. if any pending and also subject to the revision of seniority etc. if any. The interim order of the Tribunal cannot be modified unless issues involved in the O.A. have been adjudicated on merits. Since notices have been issued to the official respondents in the O.A. inasmuch as there is no final adjudication on merits and since the matter is seized by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to modify the interim order passed by the Tribunal. 7. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Tribunal to dispose of the O.A. as expeditiously as possible within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 04/03/2009 Note: The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Registrar, A..P.A.T. through special messenger. B/o. Stp REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}