IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.14304 of 2009 Between: Konanki Srinivasa Rao ..... PETITIONER AND Konanki Anjaneyulu and 5 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.14304 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar) WVMP.2837/2009 is filed by the 1st respondent in the writ petition seeking vacation of the interim suspension granted by this Court on 21.07.2009. At this stage, both the counsel submit that the writ petition itself may be disposed of, as the scope of the vacate stay petition and the writ petition is one and the same. The writ petition is, therefore, heard and is being disposed of by this order. The writ petitioner and the 1st respondent have competing claims for the post of Village Servant. The 6th respondent herein by his proceedings in Rc.No.C/352/94, dated 28.02.1994 appointed the 1st respondent herein as village servant on temporary basis. Questioning the same, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, in addition to making a representation to the District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District for consideration of his case on compassionate grounds. In view of the fact that father of the writ petitioner was a village servant, the District Collector directed the 6th respondent herein to take immediate action, as the case of the writ petitioner is one under compassionate grounds. In pursuance of the said directions of the District Collector, the 6th respondent herein terminated the appointment of the 1st respondent herein and appointed the writ petitioner in his place by order dated 01.05.1996. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent herein filed O.A.2846/1996 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) which had initially stayed the said order of the 6th respondent herein by interim order dated 25.01.1996. Later, the O.A. was disposed of on 08.01.2003 directing the 6th respondent herein to continue the writ petitioner in service and to dispose of the appeal pending before the 2nd respondent after giving opportunity of being heard to both parties. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, after hearing the appeal, passed order dated 25.11.2003 accepting the earlier appointment in favour of the petitioner made by the 6th respondent on compassionate grounds and rejected the claim of the 1st respondent herein. Questioning the said order, the 1st respondent filed O.A.2853/2004. The said O.A. was allowed on 17.04.2009 by the Tribunal holding that the appointment of the writ petitioner as village servant in the place of the 1st respondent is not sustainable and directed that the 1st respondent be reinstated as village servant. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent was appointed by the 6th respondent as village servant, vide his proceedings dated 12.06.2009. Meanwhile, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in O.A.2853/2004 dated 17.04.2009 the present writ petition is filed seeking to quash the said order. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. It is seen from the order impugned, in paragraph-13, the Tribunal noticed that the official respondents were earlier directed by the Tribunal to put the applicant (1st respondent herein) on notice, but without notice to the applicant (1st respondent herein) the proceedings are issued and thereby the Tribunal felt that the impugned order is passed without application of mind and without following the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order which is subject matter of O.A. To the extent of the aforesaid order, however, there is no grievance made out by either of the parties herein. But, however, after holding that the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside, the Tribunal went further and considered the case of the writ petitioner and the 1st respondent herein on merits and proceeded to hold that the 1st respondent herein is entitled to be appointed and continued as village servant. That part of the order, adjudicating the rival claims between the writ petitioner and the 1st respondent on merits, is questioned in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the Tribunal was satisfied that the impugned order suffers from the violation of the principles of natural justice and was passed without notice to the applicant, the Tribunal would have, at best, remitted the matter for fresh consideration, but the Tribunal committed error in going into the merits of the matter. We have considered the aforesaid submissions. It is true that in the concluding paragraph-13 of the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the principles of natural justice are violated and as per the directions issued by the Tribunal earlier, the notice to the applicant (1st respondent herein) was not given and there is nothing in the impugned order to substantiate that any notice was given in the appeal petition. Accordingly, the impugned order was liable to be set aside and was set aside by the Tribunal as having been passed without application of mind. While so, instead of remitting the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration, the Tribunal went further and considered the rival claims of the petitioner and the 1st respondent herein on merits and came to the conclusion holding that the 1st respondent herein is entitled to continue as village servant. An effective adjudication was required to be made by the appellate authority only, but the jurisdiction of the appointing and appellate authority was taken over and assumed by the Tribunal while going into the merits of the case which cannot be said to be justified. The jurisdiction of appointing and appellate authority therefore has been usurped by the Tribunal, and particularly having held that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, the Tribunal ought to have remitted the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. In view of the above, particularly in view of the several factual and other aspects required to be adjudicated upon by the original and/or appellate authority, the impugned order of the Tribunal is modified and is sustained to the extent of setting aside the order impugned in the O.A. and remitting the matter for fresh consideration to the appellate authority who shall give notice to the applicant therein and pass a reasoned order after considering the rival claims of the petitioner and the 1st respondent herein. The other part of the impugned order herein, contained in paragraphs-14 and 15, dealing with the merits of the rival claims of both sides, is accordingly set aside. Since the matter is pending for more than one decade and already gone on two rounds before the Tribunal, it is desirable that the appellate authority shall consider and dispose of the appeal, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Status Quo, existing as on now, shall continue till the appellate authority passes orders and communicate the same to the petitioner and the 1st respondent herein. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ___________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J Dated: 05.10.2009 Dsr