THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.22299 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) The petitioners, who are working as Junior Assistants and not parties to O.A.No.8 of 2008 before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, have filed the present writ petition by seeking leave of this court by order, dated 15-10-2009, in W.P.M.P.No.28390 of 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State. Originally, the applicants in the O.A., who are working as typists in the Administrative Tribunal, sought to declare the action of the 1st respondent Government in not amending the A.P.Administrative Tribunal ad hoc Rules in tune with G.O.Ms.No.144, General Administration (SER.B) Department, dated 12-05-2003, as illegal and arbitrary and for the consequential directions. At the time of hearing of the O.A., however, the said relief was not pressed and the only prayer made for consideration was that the Rules dealing with the promotion to the post of Senior Assistant as issued in G.O.Ms.No.541 General Administration (SPF.B) Department, dated 15-10-1981, be strictly implemented and the cases of the applicants be considered. Under the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed that Rule 4 under G.O.Ms.No.541, dated 15-10-1981, relating to the posts of Upper Divisional Clerk/Senior Assistant, which provides that the said posts filled for promotion from the post of lower division clerks in the Administrative Tribunal in the ratio of 3:1. The first proviso under the said Rule states that in every cycle of four vacancies, the fourth vacancy shall be filled from the posts of Typists, who are qualified under Rule 6. The second proviso states that such of the Typists, who are graduates and qualified under Rule 6(i)(b) shall be promoted in the third vacancy. Under the impugned order of the Tribunal, the only direction granted by the Tribunal was to consider the case of the applicants for promotion to the posts of UDC/Senior Assistant as per their seniority and qualifications and also strictly in accordance with Rule 4 under G.O.Ms.No.541, dated 15-10-1981 referred to above by considering their eligibility for third and fourth vacancies in the existing as well as future vacancies as per proviso 1 and 2 of Rule 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that a plain reading of the said direction would create an impression as if the ratio of 3:1 under the said Rule 4(ii) is being modified to give, as if two posts to the Typists instead of ratio of 3:1. The said grievance is totally misplaced as the direction of the Tribunal impugned herein is merely to strictly implement Rule 4 referred to above for consideration of the cases of the applicants in the category of Typists in accordance with proviso 1 and 2 of the said Rules. Therefore, it cannot be said that the ratio of 3:1 is altered and the only direction was given to consider the case of the applicants in accordance with the Rule 4 of proviso 1 and 2. We do not see any subsisting grievance of the petitioners to adjudicate in this writ petition. The petitioners apprehend that without satisfying the requisite qualifications, the Typists would be considered for the existing and future vacancies is also misplaced. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 21-10-2009 Prv