IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.797 of 2000 Between: 1 N.Seetaram Reddy S/o.Venkat Reddy O/o.Executive Engineer, P.R. Warangal 2 B.Ravindra Sarma S/o. Sri Ram Sharma O/o.Executive Engineer, P.R. Warangal ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Govt. of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj & RD Dept., A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Govt. of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary Irrigation & CAD A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad 3 The Govt. of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary GA (Ser) Dept., A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad 4 E.P.R.Prasad Reddy S/o.N.P.Sangi Reddy O/o.Chief Engineer R.W.S. Hyderabad 5 P.Srinivasa Raju S/o.Dayananda Raju O/o.Chief Engineer R.W.S. Hyderabad 6 K.Ravi Prakash S/o.Bheemaiah O/o.Chief Engineer P.R.Erramanzil Hyderabad 7 The A.P.Administrative Tribunal rep.by its Registrar Purani Haveli Hyderabad .....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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus setting aside the judgment Dt.03/09/1999 passed by A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in OA.No.4951/1996 set aside G.O.Ms.No.290, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Rehabilitation (Estt.II) Department dt.10/07/1996 as arbitrary and illegal and pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TPK} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.797 of 2000 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar) This writ petition is directed against the order of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in O.A.4951/1996 dated 03.09.1999 whereby G.O.290 Panchayat Raj, Rural Development Department & Relief (Estt.II) Department dated 10.07.1996 was quashed. The writ petitioners herein who are aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal are Assistant Engineers (Special Category). The aforesaid O.A. was filed by directly recruited Assistant Executive Engineers questioning the aforesaid G.O. on the ground that it would affect their chances of promotion. It was noticed by the Tribunal that the said G.O. only confers a gazetted status on the Assistant Engineers (Special Category), but, however, the Tribunal was of the view that the said G.O. deprives the chances of promotion of directly recruited Assistant Executive Engineers and the Tribunal was also felt that though the conditions laid down for the present, there is every likelihood of the Government issuing some other changes in favour of Assistant Engineers (Special Category) which may effect the rights of the direct recruits (Assistant Executive Engineers). On the aforesaid grounds the Tribunal had declared the G.O.Ms.No.290 dated 10.07.1996 as contrary to Rules and cannot be acted upon and set aside the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending that the apprehension of the Tribunal and the grounds on which the G.O. was set aside are wholly misconceived and factually incorrect. We have heard Sri Satyam Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 to 3. Despite service of notice none appeared for Respondents 4 to 6. We have perused the material available on record and considered the submissions. A counter affidavit filed by the official respondents before the Tribunal itself stated that as per the Presidential Order dated 18.10.1975 both the Assistant Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer posts are Zonal posts, and while the post of Assistant Executive Engineer is gazetted, the post of Assistant Engineer is non-gazetted. The proposal to confer gazetted status on the Assistant Engineers was considered by the Government basing on representations by various service associations and recommendations of the Board of Chief Engineers and the Committee constituted for that purpose to boost up the morale of Assistant Engineers and give a philip to do their best to the society. It was asserted that after confirmation of gazetted status to the Assistant Engineers, both the Assistant Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers which are distinct and separate will continue to be maintained as such as per the conditions of the Presidential Order dated 18.10.1975, their service rules for the purpose of the promotions etc. will not have any effect and each of the stream is governed by separate set of rules as are being applicable to the status of the each stream. The apprehension of the Assistant Executive Engineers that the said conferred status of the Assistant Engineers would affect their chances of promotion was therefore misconceived and factually incorrect. Similar counter affidavit is filed and in this writ petition and the same stand of the Government is reiterated. We are unable to appreciate the reasoning of the Tribunal inasmuch as even though it is specifically asserted before the Tribunal that the G.O. referred to above, does not in any way affect the rights and privileges of the direct recruits/Assistant Executive Engineers, the Tribunal interfered with the said G.O. and set aside the same. The reasons given in the impugned order of the Tribunal that there is likelihood of issuing some other changes effecting the rights of the directly recruited Assistant Executive Engineers is completely unsustainable factually incorrect. In view of specific stand of Government, as above, no interference was called for. The Assistant Executive Engineers had no locus to question the G.O.290 as they are neither concerned nor affected thereby. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J _______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dated: 26.08.2009 Dsr Note: Furnish copy in three days B/o Dsr