THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR DATED: 23-11-2010 WRIT PETITION Nos. 23430, 23445 AND 23452 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION No. 23430 OF 2010 Between: Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Chief Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others ..... PETITIONERS AND Sri M.S. Bhagvan and three others .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 23445 OF 2010 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by the Chief Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and two others ..... PETITIONERS AND Smt. Thejovathu and three others .....RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 23452 OF 2010 Between: Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration (Special.A) Department, rep., by its Chief Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others ..... PETITIONERS AND S. Krishna Murthy and three others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos. 23430, 23445 AND 23452 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed by this common order. The writ petitions are filed by the Government questioning the interim orders granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.A No. 334 of 2010 in O.S No. 589 of 2010; O.A No.750 of 2010 and O.A No. 584 of 2010 respectively. It would suffice to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 23430 of 2010 for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions. The first respondent in Writ Petition No. 23430 of 2010 filed O.A No. 589 of 2010 aggrieved by the action of the writ petitioners and the official respondents herein in not considering his claim for appointment to IAS under IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 (for short ‘the Regulations’). He has also prayed for an interim direction to the fourth petitioner herein to forward his name to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 for onward transmission of the same to the third respondent herein for the purpose of consideration of his case under the Regulations. The Government filed a counter affidavit contending that the State Government has constituted a Committee to identify non-state civil service posts for declaration as equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in State Civil Services for the limited purpose of consideration for appointment to IAS by selection. The Committee with the Chief Secretary as Chairman and comprising five other senior officers made certain recommendations after which G.O.Ms. No. 259 dated 08-06-2006 was issued declaring certain posts as equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector of State Civil Service. Based on the representations received, the matter was again reconsidered and G.O.Ms.No. 807, dated 23-12-2006 was issued declaring the posts of non-state civil service officers which come under Group – I and on further examination revised orders were issued in G.O.Ms. No. 634, dated 24-08-2007 declaring that all the posts that carry the scale of Rs.10,845-22,955 and above (revised scales of 2005) with eight years continuous service in substantive capacity in that scale, barring State Police Service, State Forest Service and Judicial Service as equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector in the State Civil Service, for the limited purpose of the Regulations under non-state civil service quota in supersession of earlier notification. The Tribunal has called for the records and after an elaborate consideration of the matter disposed of the interlocutory application with a direction to the fourth respondent herein to forward the name of the applicant to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 for consideration without reference to the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.634 G.A (Spl.A) Department, dated 24-08-2007 if he is otherwise eligible as per Regulation 4 of the Regulations and that such consideration will be subject to the outcome of the O.A. Similar interim orders were passed in the other two O.As out of which the other two writ petitions arise. Questioning the same, the present writ petitions are filed. Sri A. Satya Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently contended that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No. 634, dated 24-08-2007 by virtue of which the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose has examined the matter and recommended that since the Special Grade Deputy Collectors of State Civil Service who are in the scale of Rs.14,305-25,965 are considered for promotion to IAS from the State Civil Service quota, the non-state civil service officers who are in the same scale of Rs.14,305-25,965/- and above shall be made eligible for consideration for appointment to IAS by selection. According to him, the Tribunal ought not to have directed the Government to forward the names of the respondents – applicants without reference to the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.634, dated 24-08-2007 which itself is the criterion for consideration and that there must be some criterion or basis for determining equivalence and without there being any equivalence determined by the Government, the names of the respondents – applicants cannot be forwarded. He further contended that the Committee has gone into all aspects of the matter and since the respondents – applicants do not meet the requirements of Regulation 4 of the Regulations, they are not eligible for consideration. Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the respondent – applicant in Writ Petition No. 23430 of 2010 contended that the Tribunal was satisfied with regard to the grant of interim order pending adjudication of the OA and directed that the name of the applicant be forwarded without reference to G.O.Ms.No. 634 and the same is confined only to the extent of the respondent – applicant. According to him, the Government has taken only pay scale as the criterion for determining the eligibility and has not considered the other factors like the nature of duties, responsibilities etc. and, therefore, the interim order passed by the Tribunal needs no interference. The learned counsel for the respondent – applicant in Writ Petition No. 23445 of 2010 also supported the interim order granted by the Tribunal by contending that since balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant, interim order has been granted by the Tribunal. The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal has committed any error in passing the interim orders. On a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal in MA No. 334 of 2010 in O.A No. 589 of 2010 it is clear that the Tribunal has passed interim orders in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sub Inspector Roopal vs. Chief Secretary[1]. In the said decision, the Supreme Court held as under: “Equivalency of two posts is not judged by the sole fact of equal pay. While determining the equation of two posts many factors other than “pay” will have to be taken into consideration, like the nature of duties, responsibilities, minimum qualification etc. It is so held by this Court as far back as in the year 1968 in the case of Union of India v. P.K. Roy. In the said judgment, this Court accepted the factors laid down by the Committee of Chief Secretaries which was constituted for settling the disputes regarding equation of posts arising out of the States Reorganization Act, 1956. These four factors are: (i) the nature and duties of a post; (ii) the responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; (iii) the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and (iv) the salary of the post. It is seen that the salary of a post for the purpose of finding out the equivalency of posts is the last of the criteria. If the earlier three criteria mentioned above are fulfilled then the fact that the salaries of the two posts are different would not in any way make the post “non equivalent”.” From the above judgment of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the question of equivalence cannot be decided solely on the basis of pay scales and the other factors like nature of duties and responsibilities, minimum qualification etc., also have to be taken into consideration while determining equivalence. Further, the Tribunal passed the impugned orders as an interim measure which will be subject to the outcome of the OAs. Whether the recommendations of the Selection Committee are in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court or not has to be decided by the Tribunal at the time of final disposal of the OAs. Since balance of convenience lies in favour of the respondents – applicants the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned orders and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Tribunal to dispose of the O.As expeditiously within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by it or by this Court in this order. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J N. RAVI SHAKNAR, J 23-11-2010 ks [1] 2000 (1) SCC 644