THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.Nos.854 and 856 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar) These writ petitions are directed against the common order of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), dated 26- 12-2006 in O.A.Nos.3190 of 2006 and 5900 of 2006 respectively. By the aforesaid O.As., the petitioner had assailed the validity and correctness of the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division, Warangal, in Cr.No.1688/03/PE/A1, dated 22-02-2006, which was the appeal directed against the order of the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Warangal Division, Warangal, in Rc.No.5181/96/P&E/A1, dated 03-01-2002. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Excise Constable on 09-08-1974 and after three years of service he became eligible to be considered and promoted to the post of Excise Head Constable. He, further, contends that there were no promotions till 1982 and even in the promotions, his juniors were promoted ahead of him, though he was also one of the promotees in filing up of 12 vacancies of Excise Head Constables newly sanctioned under G.O.Ms.No.158, dated 05-02- 1982. He had earlier approached the Tribunal in O.A.No.36034 of 1991, which was disposed of by the Tribunal directing the official respondents herein to review the promotions of Excise Head Constables. In pursuance of the said direction, the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Warangal, had reviewed the promotions and passed the orders, dated 03-01-2002, referred to above, holding that all the promotions are in accordance with the Rules. On appeal by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, against the order of the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, the Deputy Commissioner once again reviewed all the promotions in terms of G.O.Ms.No.158, dated 05-02-1982, referred to above, and also in the light of G.O.Ms.No.275, dated 14-03-1987, and recorded a conclusion that there is no deviation in ordering the aforesaid promotions of 12 posts of Excise Head Constables and confirmed the order of the Excise Superintendent. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected. Questioning the said rejection order as well as the order of the Excise Superintendent rejecting the review sought for by the petitioner, the petitioner filed O.A.No.5900 of 2006 before the Tribunal. The petitioner had also filed O.A.No.3190 of 2006 complaining inaction on the part of the official respondents in not reviewing the promotions of the applicant to the posts of Excise Head Constable, Excise Sub-inspector and other higher cadres, pursuant to the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.36034 of 1991, dated 11-10-2001. Both the said O.As. were heard together by the Tribunal and disposed of under the impugned order. The Tribunal was of the view that since the O.As., are filed directly questioning the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, and as a right of appeal is available to the petitioner before the Commissioner, both the O.As., were disposed of directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and further directions were given to the Commissioner to examine the same and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks thereafter. Not satisfied with the said order, the petitioner has preferred these two writ petitions. As is evident from the narration of the facts above, O.A.No.3190 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner complaining inaction in taking up the review. As has been detailed above, the review was undertaken by the official respondents viz., the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, as is evident from the orders of the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, dated 03-01-2002 and that of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 22-02-2006, referred to above. Therefore, the said O.A.No.3190 of 2006 really did not survive and had become infructuous. Insofar as O.A.No.5900 of 2006 is concerned, though the petitioner had questioned the said orders of Prohibition and Excise Superintendent and the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise respectively, the Tribunal had directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner. When these writ petitions are taken up for hearing, the respondents had filed a counter affidavit and they have made a specific averments in the counter affidavit that no junior of the petitioner has been promoted and on the review of the promotions, as directed by the Tribunal, the promotions were found to be in order. The said counter affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal. In any case, the order impugned in the O.A. was the one passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has drawn our attention to the provisional seniority list of Excise Constables, Excise Head Constables as well as Excise Sub-Inspectors and tried to contend that the juniors of the petitioner have been shown in the said seniority list above the petitioner and that they have earned promotions to the higher categories ahead of the petitioner. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the other connected proceedings dealing with the further promotions from the category of Excise Constables onwards. We are, however, not inclined to go into the said aspects inasmuch as we are of the view that the grievance of the petitioner would be properly redressed, if the petitioner files an appeal before the Commissioner of Excise as directed by the Tribunal. The issue involved, with respect to injustice, if any, so far as the petitioner is concerned will have to be examined by the learned Commissioner in the light of the vacancy position, eligibility of the constables for promotion and the other related matters. We are, therefore, of the view that the order of the Tribunal impugned herein does not deserve any interference. The writ petitions are, accordingly, devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. However, we permit the petitioner to file an appeal, if he is so advised, before the Commissioner of Excise, against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, dated 22-02- 2006, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filing such appeal, the Commissioner is directed to consider the same, in accordance with law, and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 02-02-2010 Prv