IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11748 of 2009 Between: T. Ramakrishna Reddy S/o. T. Madhava Reddy Govt. S.W. Boys Hostel, Vargal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary Education Department, at Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Medak District at Sanga Reddy. 3 The Commissioner of Social Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4 M. Devadanam S/o.Not Known Govt. Social Welfare Boys Hostel, Narayankhed, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS 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, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or directin, to call for the records pertaining to the order dt. 01.05.2009 passed in O.A.No.7608 of 2006 on the file of Hon'ble A.P. Adminstrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and quash the same by holding it to be illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in WPNo.10659 of 2007. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11748 of 2009 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT), Hyderabad, dated 01.05.2009 passed in O.A.No.7608 of 2006, whereby the APAT allowed the O.A. filed by the fourth respondent herein. The O.A. was filed against order of the District Collector dated 14.11.2006 by which the fourth respondent was informed that the Government vide its memo dated 07.11.2005 appointed the Additional Director, Social Welfare, to conduct discrete enquiry against him regarding certain irregularities and as soon as the instructions are received from the Government, his case for promotion will be considered as per the merits of the case. The case of the fourth respondent before the APAT was that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated in respect of the discrete enquiry and that pendency of such discrete enquiry should not come in the way of his promotion. The APAT allowed the O.A. directing the official respondents to consider his case for promotion under Rule 5(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules (‘the Rules’ for brevity) as it is a nonselection post, if he is under zone of consideration, without reference to the enquiry referred to in order of the District Collector dated 14.11.2006 and to pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. As seen from the record, it shows that questioning order of the APAT dated 13.03.2007 allowing O.A.No.7608 of 2006, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.10659 of 2008 before this Court stating that he was appointed as Hostel Welfare Officer (Grade II) and was promoted as Hostel Welfare Officer (Grade I) vide proceedings dated 26.08.2006, and if the fourth respondent is promoted, his case will be affected and that he was not given any opportunity of hearing before passing of the aforesaid order by the APAT. This Court allowed the said writ petition on 08.04.2008. While setting order of the APAT dated 13.03.2007, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. Liberty was given to the petitioner to file petition for his impleadment as a party respondent in the O.A. The official respondents were directed to file counter within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, and on such filing, the O.A. shall be disposed of in accordance with law on or before 31.07.2008. Till then interim suspension granted on 07.06.2007 was directed to be continued. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application to implead himself and accordingly he was impleaded as the fourth respondent in the O.A. vide order dated 08.09.2008 in M.A.No.1801 of 2008 and the O.A. was directed to be listed to the next day i.e., on 09.09.2008. It is stated that on 09.09.2008 the fourth respondent was called absent and accordingly the O.A. itself was dismissed for default on the same day. Then the fourth respondent filed M.A.No.55 of 2009 to condone the delay in filing the restoration application and M.A.No.1518 of 2009 was filed to restore the O.A. by setting aside default order dated 09.09.2008. The said two applications were allowed and the O.A. was restored. Ultimately the O.A. was allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that M.A.Nos.55 and 1518 of 2009 for condonation of delay as well as for restoration of the O.A. were not served on the petitioner, that without hearing the petitioner, the APAT condoned the delay and restored the O.A., and therefore, the petitioner was unaware of the posting of the O.A. on 29.04.2009 and 01.05.2009 and that the O.A. was also allowed on 01.05.2009 without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner finding fault with his counsel appearing before the APAT that he did not file any counter and he was absent on that day and on the previous adjournment also and that the learned Government Pleader advanced arguments on the basis of the record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the writ petition is filed only on the ground that M.A.Nos.55 and 1518 of 2009 for condonation of delay and for restoration of the O.A. were not served on the petitioner and therefore he was unaware of the posting of the O.A., though the name of his counsel was appearing in the cause list on 29.04.2009 and 01.05.2009. It is usual practice that the Courts/Tribunal can dispose of the matters irrespective of the presence of the counsel or the parties on the dates of hearing after ordering to print their names in the cause list. However, in this case, admittedly the applications for condonation of delay and for restoration of the O.A. were not served on the petitioner and therefore he could not have noticed when the O.A. was listed by printing the petitioner’s counsel’s name and the O.A. was disposed of without hearing the petitioner. Therefore, it can be said that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for his nonappearance on 29.04.2009 and 01.05.2009. In view of the same, the order impugned cannot be sustained. However, we are not expressing any opinion on the questions whether the petitioner was senior or junior to the fourth respondent and if the case of the fourth respondent for promotion is considered, the petitioner’s case will be affected or not. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside impugned order dated 01.05.2009 in O.A.No.7608 of 2006 and remand the O.A. once again to the APAT, which shall be disposed of within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH , J 17th July, 2009 ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J GHN