IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 14176 of 2008 Between: S.Yakub Ali S/o Syed Hussain Ali Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police Hyderabad City Hyderabad 2 The Director General and Inspector General of Police Govt of A.P.Hyderabad 3 The Government of A.P rep.by its Principal Secretrary Home Department Secretariat Hyderabad 4 S.Nagaraj Dy.Superintendent of Police the Director General and Inspector General of Police Hyderabad 5 Y.Sriramulu Dy Superintendent of Police the Director General and Inspector General of Police Hyderabad 6 V.Ashok Reddy Dy.Superitendent of Police the Director General and Inspector General of Police Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 writ of Certiorari calling for the connected records including the judgment in O.A No.5019 of 2003 dt.8-2-2008 and also in Rev MA No.609 of 2008 in O.A No.5019 of 2003 dt.26-03-2008 and quash the same as illegal improper unjust arbitrary and contrary to law and set aside the Memo No.L&O/E2/93/2001 dt.6-5-2002 issued by the 1st respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAMAMOHAN-MAHADEVA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order in O.A.No. 5019 of 2003 dated 08.02.2008 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and also the order in Rev. M.A.No. 609 of 2008 in O.A.No. 5019 of 2003 dated 26.3.2008 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the Memo No. L&O/E2/93/2001 dated 6.5.2002 issued by the first respondent. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned G.P. for Services-II. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that by the impugned order dated 6.5.2002, which was the subject matter of O.A.No. 5019 of 2003, the Commissioner of Police informed the petitioner that he is not entitled for restoration of his seniority in the rank of Inspector along with his immediate juniors as he could not impress even as SI, which is contrary to law. He further contended that in the impugned order, it is observed that as seen from the Review Petition the case of the petitioner has been considered on merits and as he was not up to the mark, his name was not included in the ‘C’ list of S.Is fit for promotion to the post of Inspectors and the same is against the principles of law. He further contended that the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 13337 of 2002, is not at all taken into consideration by the Tribunal while passing the order. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is on merits and there are no grounds to interfere with the same and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. We have perused the impugned Memo dated 6.5.2002 issued by the first respondent, and for better appreciation, the relevant portion of the same is extracted here under: “He is informed that in compliance of directions of Hon’ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal/High Court vide references first and second cited, he was promoted as Inspector of Police purely on out of seniority basis vide D.O.No. 532 dated 3.3.1988. Subsequently, his services were regularized with effect from the date of his out of seniority Inspector promotion. He was not promoted as Inspector along with his immediate juniors, as he could not impress even as peter SI. Hence, he cannot claim seniority along with his immediate juniors. On the APAT order dated 15.10.87, a Review M.A. was filed and the APAT also vide its order third cited observed as follows: “…….The Director General & Inspector General of Police has not included the name in the ‘C’ list. It is seen from the Review Petition that the case of the petitioner has been considered on merits and as he was not up to the mark his name was not included in the “C” list o SIs fit for promotion to the post of Inspectors. If this is so, the direction to consider the case of the petitioner has been complied with by the respondent. In the circumstances no further orders are required. The Review M.A has been disposed of accordingly.” Be that as it may, as seen from the record, and as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the order dated 20.9.2002 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 13337 of 2002. This Court while disposing of the matter, observed as under: “In our considered opinion, the issue as to whether the order in Review M.A.No. 2471 of 1997, dated 9th July, 1998 has been passed without any notice or whatsoever to the petitioner, itself is required to be gone into by the Tribunal. That could be a ground of attack of the impugned order. But this Court cannot presume that the order passed by the Tribunal dated 9th July, 1998 is vitiated in order to decide the correctness of the impugned proceedings, dated 6th May, 2002. We cannot directly judicially review the order dated 6th May, 2002 on whatever grounds. For the aforesaid reasons, leave is granted to the petitioner to challenge the impugned proceedings dated 6th May, 2002 in the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and if the petitioner files such a petition the same shall be considered on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations, if any made by this Court in this Order since we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. It is needless to observe that tribunal shall also go into the question as to whether review M.A. 2471 of 1997 has been disposed of without notice to the petitioner. It shall open to the petitioner to raise such additional grounds as he may wish to do so to challenge the impugned proceedings, dated 6th May, 2002.” In view of the above, it is evident that the Tribunal while dismissing the O.A has not taken into consideration the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 13337 of 2002. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for consideration afresh in accordance with law and also the order dated 12.9.2002 passed in W.P.No. 13337 of 2002, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ SANJAY KUMAR , J Dt. 17.12.2008 KA Note: Communicate a copy of this Order to the Registrar, Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Commissioner of Police Hyderabad City Hyderabad 2 The Director General and Inspector General of Police Govt of A.P.Hyderabad 3 The Government of A.P rep.by its Principal Secretary Home Department Secretariat Hyderabad 4 S.Nagaraj Dy.Superintendent of Police the Director General and Inspector General of Police Hyderabad 5 Y.Sriramulu Dy Superintendent of Police the Director General and Inspector General of Police Hyderabad 6 V.Ashok Reddy Dy.Superitendent of Police the Director General and Inspector General of Police Hyderabad 7. 2CC to G.P. for Services -II, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad OUT 8. 2 CD copies