HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.26011 OF 2009 Dt.30.11.2009 Between: N.Viswanadham .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.26011 OF 2009 ORDER: (per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Petitioner herein is the applicant before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.418 of 2005. His grievance before the Tribunal was to consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Director/Deputy Director notionally with all consequential benefits from the date of his junior was promoted as such in terms of his representation submitted on 22.11.2004. It is the specific case that he was selected and appointed as Drugs Inspector vide G.O.Ms.No.1110, dated 6.11.1978. Thereafter he was promoted as Assistant Director, Drugs Control Administration at Hyderabad during the year 1999 and as per seniority list of his batch of selectees, he was at S.No.4 i.e., after the name of M.Jagannath Prasad and above the name of M.Kodanda Ram. It is specifically stated that the said M.Kondanda Ram, junior to him, was considered and promoted during the year 1997 and therefore he seeks promotion on par with his junior M.Kodanda Ram. It is further stated that he was imposed punishment for dereliction of duties vide proceedings Rc.No.9900/E1/94, dated 10.5.1996, by the Director of Drugs Control Administration, Hyderabad, inflicting punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. Thus, there cannot be any dispute that he was undergoing punishment for the panel year 1996-97 and therefore he was not entitled to be considered for any promotion during the panel year 1996- 97. But, the case of the petitioner is that after punishment period is over he is entitled to be considered for promotion during the year 1997-98. On the said contention, the Tribunal called for records and after perusal of the records it was found that the said Kodanda Ram, junior to the applicant, had been promoted in the panel year 1996-97 and the actual promotion orders were issued vide G.O.Ms.No.499, dated 30.12.1997. Therefore, the Tribunal held that as the applicant was undergoing punishment in the panel year 1996-97, vide proceedings dated 10.5.1996 he was not entitled to be considered for promotion on par with his junior and accordingly dismissed the O.A. If that be so, we are of the opinion that it cannot be contended that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the post of Assistant Director on par with M.Kodanda Ram as he was obtained promotion earlier to him. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was overlooked and that he is entitled to be promoted on par with his junior. We do not see any error committed by the Tribunal and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that during 1998 he was overlooked, whereas four direct recruits of 1981 batch were promoted is concerned, the petitioner has not made them parties to the O.A. It is not known under what circumstances and under which quota they were appointed. Without impleading them as parties, we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot make any grievance. Further, when his junior was promoted during the year 1996-97 vide orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.499, dated 30.12.1997, he had approached the Tribunal during the year 2005 i.e., after eight years. In view of the above, we do not see any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 30.11.2009 kpr