IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 2937 of 2009 Between: D.Pushpa Raju S/o. late Sri D. Abraham Prohibition and Excise Department,O/o. Superintendent Squad, Prohibition and Excise, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Brodipet, Guntur, Guntur District. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Opp: A.P.P.S.C., Buildings, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 Sri K.Prabhakar Prohibition & Excise, O/o. The Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Guntur. .....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 to issue appropriate writ or order or direction preferably one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records relating to OASR No.3333 of 2009 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and set aside the orders dated 11.2.2009 in upholding the Office Objection and direct the A.P. Administrative Tribunal to number the O.A., filed by the petitioner in OASR. No.3333 of 2009, by declaring that the O.A. filed by the Petitioner is within the limitation as it is continuous cause of action and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.GURU GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.SR.No. 3333 of 2009 dated 11.2.2009, wherein and whereby the Tribunal held as under: “The OASR was posted on 11.2.2009 for orders on Office Objection in S.R. stage. The Tribunal made the following Order: “Office objection is upheld”. Hence, returned.” The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the prayer made in O.A.SR No. 3333 of 2009, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare the action of the first respondent in filling up of the posts of Sub Inspector of Prohibition and Excise in Zone-III on incharge basis, without recourse to fill up the posts by way of promotion as illegal, void and one without jurisdiction, besides violation of Rule 10(h) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and consequently direct the first respondent to promote the applicant to the post of Sub Inspector of Prohibition and Excise in Zone-III, by duly following the communal roster, from the date of vacancies with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further drawn our attention to Rule 10(h) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, which reads as under: “10(h) The practice of making incharge arrangements on own scale of pay of the incumbent concerned is totally prohibited and whenever filling up of vacant posts is considered expedient in the exigencies of administration, action may be taken to fill the post following the relevant special/ad hoc rules, duly placing the proposals before the DPC/APPSC as the case may be or by making full additional charge arrangements as provided for in the fundamental rules.” A perusal of the above Rule clearly postulates that the authorities have to make a regular promotion in the post of Sub Inspector of Prohibition and Excise and the third respondent has been continuing for the last three years. It was contended that there is continuous violation of rules by virtue of continuing the third respondent on in-charge basis, which is prohibited under law. Further, there is no question of limitation in this case. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner made a representation-dated 15.3.2008 but the authorities have not taken any decision on it so far. Further he has drawn our attention to Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which reads as under: “21 LIMITATION: (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,-- (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause(a) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made; (b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub- section(2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired there after without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in such-section (1), where:- (a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and (b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it ;is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.” We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. As seen from the above legal poison viz., Rule 10(h) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and Section 21 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunals Act, the authorities concerned have violated the same in continuing the third respondent on in-incharge basis, which is prohibited under law. The authorities ought to have replaced the petitioner by making necessary arrangements for undertaking the promotions. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to number the O.A and decide the matter on merits in accordance with law. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ SANJAY KUMAR , J Dt. 18.02.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Brodipet, Guntur, Guntur District. 2 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Opp: A.P.P.S.C., Buildings, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 Sri K.Prabhakar Prohibition & Excise, O/o. The Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Guntur. 4. 2 CCs to G.P. for Services –I, High Court of A.P. Buildings, Hyderabad. 5. 2 CD copies