IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14298 of 2007 Between: 1 C. Srinivas, S/o.C. Laxmi Kanth, Prohibition & Excise, Narayanpet, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 K. N. Mihael Manohar, S/o.K.A.Manohar, Prohibiton & Excise, Kodangal, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 T. Ramesh Singh, S/o.Kishan Singh, Prohibiton & Excise, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent,Mahaboobnagar District,Mahaboobnagar. 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibiton & Excise, Hyderabad Division, Hyd. 4 The Govt of A.P., rep. by its Prl., Secretary, Revenue ( Excise) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5 A. Chandraiah, S/o.A. Ramulu, Narayanpet, Mahaboobnagar District. 6 G.Prakash, S/o.Kotanna, Prohibition & Excise, Atmakur. 7 B. sugnaneswar Goud, S/o.Kistanna Goud, Prohibition & Excise, Atmakur. 8 Shankaraiah, S/o.lingaiah, Prohibition & Excise, Mahaboobnagar. 9 Balaram, S/o.thimmaiah, Prohibition & Excise, Mahaboobnagar. 10 Balappa, S/o.Kasanna, AC.Enforcement Proh & Excise, Mahaboobnagar. .....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 issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order, dt. 3.1.2007 passed by the A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3348 of 2005 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.M.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 10: None The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14298 of 2007 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed,J) Challenging the order dated 3.1.2007 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3348 of 2005, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein and the unofficial respondents were appointed as Excise Constables in the year 1992 by way of direct recruitment. While so, it appears, the 2nd respondent prepared a provisional seniority list on 12.4.1993 inviting objections from the individuals. But the grievance of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent without furnishing a copy of the said seniority list to them, finalized the same on 21.4.1993 and having come to know of this, they made a representation to the 2nd respondent requesting him to revise the final seniority list dated 21.4.1993, followed by series of representations. But, no action was taken. However, through proceedings dated 29.12.2003, the 2nd respondent rejected the representation of the petitioners. Aggrieved, the petitioners carried the matter by way of appeal to the 1st respondent and when no orders were passed in the appeal and when the authorities were proceeding to make promotions, the petitioners filed O.A. No. 266 of 2004 before the Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondent-authorities to review and re-fix the seniority by duly following Rule 33 (b) and 36(1) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service rules. Through order dated 9.2.2004, the Tribunal disposed of the aforesaid O.A. directing the respondent-authorities to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order and till the disposal of the appeal, the respondents 1 and 2 therein were directed not to effect promotions to the post of Excise Head Constables. Thereafter, the authorities seemed to have issued another provisional seniority list on 13.12.2004, which was finalized on 20.6.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the unofficial respondents herein filed O.A. No. 3348 of 2005 before the Tribunal assailing the final seniority list issued vide proceedings bearing Rc. No. A2/1482/2003, dated 20.6.2005. The tribunal, by the order impugned in this writ petition dated 3.1.2007, while allowing the O.A. has set aside the final seniority list dated 20.6.2005 and directed the respondent-authorities to follow the seniority list dated 21.4.1993. Aggrieved by the said order, the unofficial respondents in the aforesaid O.A. filed the present writ petition. Sri M. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were not aware of the provisional seniority list dated 21.4.1993 and therefore, they could not file their objections to the said seniority list. He further stated that the respondent-authorities without communicating a copy of the said provisional seniority list to the petitioners and without calling for their objections, issued the final seniority list on 21.4.1993 and even though number of representations were made to revise the said seniority list and re-fix their seniority, the respondents did not take any action and then they filed an appeal before the appellate authority as well as O.A. No.266 of 2004 before the Tribunal and in pursuance of the directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A. No.266 of 2004, through order dated 29.11.2004, the appellate authority disposed of the appeal by setting aside the final seniority list dated 21.4.1993 with a direction to the authority concerned to prepare provisional seniority list as per the merit and roaster and publish and finalise the same as per the rules. He, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in passing the impugned order. On the other hand, Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 5,6 and 10 would submit that the appellate authority entertained the appeal filed by the petitioners nearly after a period of ten years after the seniority list dated 21.4.1993 was finalized. He further stated that the appellate authority passed the order dated 29.11.2004 without issuing any notice and opportunity of hearing to the respondents and the said order needs to be quashed. Admittedly, the 1st respondent disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioners on 29.11.2004 in pursuance of the directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 266 of 2004, dated 9.2.2004 and the aforesaid order of 1st respondent does not disclose as to whether any notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the unofficial respondents before passing of the said order. In the circumstances, we are inclined to remand the matter to the 1st respondent-appellate authority for fresh disposal. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition and remand the matter to the 1st respondent-appellate authority with a direction to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioners afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. Both the parties are at liberty to raise all the contentions which they would like to urge before the appellate authority. However, the 1st respondent-appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 22nd December, 2008 ________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY,J Note: Furnish c.c. in two days B/o pnb