IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16535 OF 1999 Between: D. Gopal S/o. Sayabu Tribal Welfare Sub-Division Sudhimalla, Yellandu, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Chief Engineer,Tribal Welfare Engineering, Telugu Samkshema Bhavan, Masab Tank Hyderabad. 2. The Superintending Engineer, Tribal Welfare Engineering Warangal. 3. P.Murali Mohan S/o.P.Komurelli O/o. The Exeructive Engineer Tribal Welfare Eturnagaram Warangal Dist. 4. The A.P Administrative Tribunal Rep. by its Registrar Purani Havili 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for records relating to the and connected with the proceedings with the proceedings No.B1/1/97 dt.2-12-1997 of the 1st respondent and further cal for the records relating to and connected with O.A.No.7561/97, dt.8-6-1999 on the file of the A.P Admn.Tribunal, Hyderabad and to further call for the records relating to and connected with the proceedings No.B1/15/O.A.No.7561/97, dt.16-7- 1999 of the 1st respondent and the consequential proceedings No.A2/1316/97, dt.22-7-99 of the 2nd respondent and quash or set aside the same as arbitrary improper and erroneous and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Assistant Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Yellandu, Khammam Dist., and pass such other and further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR. M.RATNA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy) The petitioner filed O.A. No.7561 of 1997 against his reversion in service and for a consequential direction to continue him in service as Assistant Engineer in the Tribal Welfare Engineering Department until the Accounts Test for Public Works Department Officers and Subordinates is conducted by the APPSC. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Work Inspector and joined as such in the Tribal Welfare Engineering Department on 25-01-1985. He was promoted on 02-06-1986 as Draughtsman, on 29-06-1993 as Draughtsman Grade – II and on 02-08-1997 as Assistant Engineer on ad-hoc basis by respondent No.1 with a condition that he should pass Accounts Test for Public Works Department Officers and Subordinates within one year or any of the two examinations to be held after his promotion, whichever is later, and failure to pass that test within the time stipulated shall result in his reversion as Draughtsman Grade – II. The petitioner joined as Assistant Engineer on 04-09-1997 in the Sub Division – I at Eturnagaram and thereafter, the impugned proceedings were issued on 02-12-1997 reverting him as Draughtsman Grade – II. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that as per Rule 3 of the A.P. Tribal Welfare Engineering Subordinate Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms. No.143, Social Welfare (VI) Department, dated 02-12-1996, appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer has to be made by following the prescribed Rules made thereunder. 4. There is no dispute about the facts of the case. 5. The main question is with regard to petitioner passing the Accounts Test for Public Works Department Officers and Subordinates subject to which condition he was promoted. 6. The learned Administrative Tribunal dismissed the O.A. with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s promotion, as per the Rules and eligibility, as Assistant Engineer, as and when he produces proof of passing the prescribed Accounts Test. 7. There is no suspension of the above order of the learned Administrative Tribunal. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner reports that even till now, petitioner has not passed the prescribed Accounts Test. 9. In these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner has crossed the age of 45 years, as such, there is no requirement for him to pass the Accounts Test. That may be so, but, for that reason, there need not be any modification of the impugned order of the learned Administrative Tribunal as the same directs the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion as per the Rules and eligibility. 11. In the circumstances, if the present Rules permit, the petitioner can be now promoted without passing the Account Test. 12. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ______________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 16, 2009. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J PV