IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 4457of 2009 BETWEEN: S. Srinivas, S/o.Mallaiah, Occ: Inspector of Central Excise, Tirupati Commissionerate, AP and others. ... PETITIONERS AND The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Government of India, New Delhi and others. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the orders dated 30.09.2008 in O.A.No.398 of 2008 of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, so far as setting aside the select list prepared in DPC held on 14.02.2008 as clear violation of principles of natural justice and quash and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and may be pleaded to pass such other order and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. K. SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) MRS. B. VASANTHA LAKSHMI MR. K. RAM MURTHY The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) Petitioners in this writ petition are not parties before the Central Administrative Tribunal which allowed O.A.No.398 of 2008 by its order dated 30.09.2008. Petitioners have obtained leave from this Court vide orders in WPMP.No.5626 of 2009 dated 03.03.2009 and filed this writ petition. 2. The petitioners were Senior Tax Assistants (STA) and they were considered for promotion to the post of Inspector of Central Excise under the DPC held on 14.02.2008. The DPC had empanelled them and prepared the select list dated 20.02.2008 and based on which the petitioners were promoted as Inspectors of Central Excise and have since been posted to the said promotional post and have been working. While so, the second DPC was held on 15.05.2008 for considering promotions with respect to further vacancies and it selected candidates as set out the select list dated 20.06.2008. The respondents 6 to 10 herein filed O.A.No.398 of 2008 before the tribunal challenging the select list dated 20.06.2008. 3. The tribunal considered the said OA in the light of the contentions raised by the said applicants (respondents 6 to 10 herein) and accepted their contention that the procedure followed by DPC was not in accordance with the instructions of the Ministry of Finance and ultimately declared that the DPC dated 15.05.2008 was invalid and not in accordance with the circulars of the Finance Ministry dated 09.05.1991 again reiterated on 23.06.2003. The tribunal also held that the earlier DPC dated 14.02.2008, under which the petitioners herein were promoted, was also invalid and set aside the said DPC recommendations also, though the petitioners herein are neither parties to the said OA nor the said DPC dated 14.02.2008 was the subject matter of the OA. On account of the said order of the tribunal the petitioners, being affected, have approached this Court and filed the present writ petition and obtained interim suspension of the order of the tribunal. 4. Now a vacate stay petition has been filed by the learned Assistant Solicitor General and an implead petition also has been filed by respondents 22 and 23, who are seeking to come on record and oppose this writ petition. The implead petition has been ordered. The case of the impleaded respondents is that they were selected by a subsequent DPC dated 29.11.2008 and that though they are selected under the said DPC, they are not getting the promotion on account of the invalidation of the earlier DPC’s under the impugned order. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Solicitor General as well as the learned counsel for the impleaded respondents. 6. It is clearly evident from the record that the subject matter of OA.No.398 of 2008 was only DPC dated 15.05.2008 and neither the earlier DPC thereto i.e. dated 14.02.2008 nor the subsequent DPC thereto i.e. dated 29.12.2008 was the subject matter of the OA. Admittedly, the selectees under both the earlier and later DPC’s are not parties to the OA. Ex facie, therefore, the tribunal could not have set aside those DPC’s as they were not the subject matter of the OA before it. Moreover, the selectees, who were selected in the impugned DPC and select list dated 20.06.2008 have not questioned the order of the tribunal setting aside the select list dated 20.06.2008. Further, the petitioners in this writ petition, who were promoted under the DPC held on 14.02.2008, cannot be affected by the order of the tribunal inasmuch as the DPC and the select list under which they were selected and promoted was not the subject matter of the OA. Similarly, to the extent of the impleaded respondents also their DPC and their select list was also not the subject matter of the OA. In view of this, it is obvious, therefore, that the selections and promotions under earlier DPC dated 14.02.2008 and later DPC dated 29.12.2008 cannot be affected by the impugned order. 7. The operative portion of the impugned order, therefore, to the extent of setting aside the DPC held on 14.02.2008 is liable to be set aside and the relief in the OA is, therefore, confined only with respect to DPC and the select list dated 20.06.2008. Subject to the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 22, 2009 DSK