IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.14585 of 2000 Between: Mohammed Ali Baig, S/o Abbas Baig ….. Petitioner AND The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, A.P., Hyderabad and 2 others …... Respondents ORDER: (Per B. Prakash Rao, J) Being aggrieved by the dismissal of O.A.No.890 of 1993 by the order dated 14-10-1999 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition seeking to quash the same. The petitioner herein is the unsuccessful applicant before the Tribunal, whose application in O.A.No.890 of 1993, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking to declare the action of the first respondent therein in confirming the date of regularization as 16-10-1986 as illegal, was dismissed. The claim of the petitioner herein is that he was initially appointed as L.D. Clerk in the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District, vide proceedings dated 04-07-1964 under Rule 10 (a) (i) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules and joined duty on 10-07-1964. Subsequently, after the success in A.P.P.S.C. Group-IV examination of 1964-65, he was selected as L.D. Clerk on regular basis in Revenue Department and was allotted to District Collector, Adilabad. After the chequered events, the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 16-10-1966 vide proceedings dated 01-02-1968. However, the claim of the petitioner was that his services should have been regularized with effect from the date on which the services of his junior Saheb Khan and others were regularized. The said application, after contest by the respondents, was dismissed mainly on the ground that the persons whose services would be affected if any directions are issued to the respondents to regularize his services with retrospective effect, were not brought on record in the application. While considering the case of the petitioner, the Tribunal made an observation that even though the case of the applicant about regularization of his services on par with Saheb Khan and others was justified, it is only on the ground that as the applicant failed to bring the affected parties on record, the application was not entertained and accordingly, dismissed the application. Hence, the writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and after perusing the material on record, we are of the view that even in this writ petition, there is no attempt by the writ petitioner to make the affected persons as parties to the writ petition. In the absence of such affected parties in this writ petition, we do not find any prima facie ground as to the entertainment of the writ petition. However, it has been observed that as the case of the petitioner was genuine and justified, it is unintelligible as to why he was denied of his claim by the respondents. In that view of the matter, it is left open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the concerned authorities setting forth all his claims and on filing of such application, the authorities concerned shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-11-2009 Ksn