IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 7840 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Khader Ahmed, S/o. Saheb Hussain, Manthani(on O.D., O/o.Commisioner of Fisheries) Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Fisheries, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Deputy Director of Fisheries, Warangal. 3 Government of A.P., rep by its Secretary, Animal husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 P.Laxminarayana,Fisheries Development Officer, C/o. Commissioner of Fisheries, A.P., Hyderabad. 5 A.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Fisheries Development Officer, C/o. Commissioner of Fisheries, A.P., Hyd. 6 P.Srihari, Fisheries Develoment Officer, C/o. Commissioner of Fisheries, A.P., Hyd. 7 M.Nageshwara Rao, Fisheries Development Officer, C/o. Commissioner of Fisheries, A.P., Hyd. .....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 to issue a writ, order or direction more in thenature of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Judgment of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2146 of 2008 dated 25-3-2008 and Memo No.10348/A.2/2007, dated 6-2-2008 issued by the Commissioner of Fisheries, A.P. Hyderabad and set-aside the same and hold that the earlier seniority list issued in Memo No.20522/A2/95, dt. 23.12.1995 is perfectly legal, valid and in order and consequently direct therespondents to eﬀect promotions to the posts of Assistant Director of Fishereis on that basis and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.7840 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the decision rendered in O.A.No.2146 of 2008 dated 25-03-2008 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The details relevant for deciding this writ petition are that the petitioner ﬁled the above O.A. challenging the integrated seniority list of Fisheries Development Oﬃcers and Research Assistants in Multi-zone-II, issued vide Memo dated 06-02-2008 prepared by the Commissioner of Fisheries, Hyderabad. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is shown as junior to respondent Nos.4 to 7 who were even given the beneﬁt of relaxation of Rule-16(h) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. It is averred that the date of regularisation of his services was altered and this was done without any notice. The Tribunal after considering the case, had given liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority challenging the said seniority list in accordance with Rule 26 of the said Rules. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for oﬃcial respondents and learned counsel appearing for unoﬃcial respondents and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of oﬃcial respondents in giving relaxation of Rule 16(h) of the Rules to the juniors, who are arrayed as respondent Nos.5 to 7 without issuing notice to the petitioner, is contrary to Rule 26 of the said Rules. Learned counsel further submitted that the ﬁnal seniority list was prepared on 23-12- 1995 and thereafter, the integrated provisional seniority list was prepared in the year 2002 and ﬁnalised in 2008, by which respondents 4 to 7 were shown as seniors to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has not passed the Accounts Test for Subordinate Oﬃcers Part-I within the period of probation and as such, the date of passing the Accounts Test has been taken into account. Learned counsel appearing for unoﬃcial respondents supported the contentions of learned Government Pleader. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and upon perusing the record, it is clear that the petitioner challenged the integrated ﬁnal seniority list of Fisheries Development Oﬃcers and Research Assistant in Multi-zone-II. Instead of deciding the issue involved in O.A. on merits, the Tribunal had given liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. Prima facie, it appears the unoﬃcial respondents have been given relaxation of Rule 16(h) of the Rules, the order of relaxation does not indicate that it is just and necessary in public interest to relax the Rule and notice to the petitioner was not issued before revising his seniority by taking into consideration the date of his joining in service. Apart from this, the Tribunal has not adjudicated the issues in O.A. on merits. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 25-03-2008, with a direction to the Tribunal to consider the issues raised in O.A. afresh, after giving opportunity to both the parties and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, uninﬂuenced by any observations made by us hereinabove, or in the impugned order. In view of the submission that the promotions are likely to be eﬀected, one post of Assistant Director of Fisheries shall be kept vacant till the disposal of the O.A. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 23-09-2008 Note: Furnish copy in two days. (b/o) bsc