IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.27521 of 2007 Between: B.Nageswara Rao S/o.B.Dharma Raju Additional Commandant, APSP XIII Battalion, Mancherial, Adilabad District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home (Police-E) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General and Inspector General of police, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 Sri M.Sudhakar, S/o.Sudharshanam, VII Battalion, APSP Dichpalli, Nizamabad 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 may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, call for the records relating to and in connection with the order in O.A.No.3568 of 2006 dated 5.12.2007 on the ﬁle of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequentially to quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.27521 OF 2007 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the order, dated 05.12.2007, passed in O.A.No.3568 of 2006, on the ﬁle of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein, who is working as Additional Commandant in the A.P.S.P., submitted a representation to the authorities to ﬁx his seniority in the panel of 1990, as one B. Ranga Reddy, who is junior to him, has been promoted as Assistant Commandant in the year 1990; whereas he has been promoted in the year 1993. After careful consideration of the said representation submitted by the petitioner and in the light of the remarks submitted by the 2nd respondent- Director General and Inspector General of Police, A.P., Hyderabad, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 13.03.1995 directing that the petitioner be assigned notional seniority in the category of Assistant Commandant with eﬀect from the date on which his junior B. Ranga Reddy has been promoted as Assistant Commandant i.e. with eﬀect from 28.11.1990, subject to the ﬁnal dates to be assigned after regular panels are approved by the A.P. Public Service Commission. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent herein ﬁled the present O.A. before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, challenging the said G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 13.03.1995, on the ground that the same was issued without putting the aﬀected persons on notice. The Tribunal held that there was violation of principles of natural justice for not putting the aﬀected persons on notice. Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 05.12.2007, the O.A. was allowed, setting aside the said G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 13.03.1995, and the matter was remanded to the Government for passing appropriate orders, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order, by putting the aﬀected parties on notice. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 3. Heard both sides. 4. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 13.03.1995, impugned in the O.A., does not indicate that the same has been issued after putting the aﬀected persons on notice, aﬀording an opportunity to them to contest the claim of the petitioner and ﬁle their objections. Therefore, it can be said that there is violation of principles of natural justice. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly set aside the said G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 13.03.1995 and remanded the matter to the Government for fresh consideration by putting the aﬀected persons on notice. We see no illegality in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. However, status quo with regard to the status of the petitioner shall be continued till the matter is re-considered by the Government. _______________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 29th July, 2008 IBL