THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.22175 and 22181 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: (per VVA, J) These two writ petitions are directed against interim orders, dated 14.09.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.Nos.10430 and 10429 of 2009 respectively. Both these interim orders were passed suspending the revised seniority list, following the decision of the Supreme Court in P.SRINIVAS v. M.RADHAKRISHNAMURTHY[1]. The first respondent in each of these writ petitions was the applicant before the Tribunal. Normally, we would not have entertained this writ petition, as it is directed against the ex parte orders of the Tribunal. However, since the issue is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court and the ex parte interim order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2258 of 2008 runs counter thereto, we had entertained these writ petitions and granted interim suspension at the time of admission. The facts in the first writ petition are sufficient to be mentioned for the purpose of disposal of both these writ petitions. The petitioner and the first respondent herein were recruited directly by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) pursuant to the notification issued in 1990 for filling up the post of Prohibition and Excise Inspector. By virtue of the orders passed by the fourth respondent herein on 04.10.1995, the first respondent herein was allotted to Zone-II. He joined as Prohibition and Excise Inspector on 28.06.1996. The case of the petitioner herein is that he was also selected in the same batch, and pursuant to the directions issued by the fourth respondent herein, he joined on 13.10.1995. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent in each of these writ petitions did not join within the time stipulated by the order of the fourth respondent and while the petitioner joined within the time prescribed, the first respondent in each of these writ petitions could not join within the time on account of personal reasons, and had sought orders from the Government in G.O.Rt.No.750, Revenue (Excise-I) Department, dated 30.05.1996, whereunder the Government granted joining time to the first respondent in each of these writ petitions till 30.06.1996. Accordingly, the first respondent joined on 28.06.1996. While the seniority list of the Prohibition and Excise Inspectors was prepared by respondent No.3 herein, the petitioner objected to the position assigned to the first respondent in each case on the ground that they having not joined within the time prescribed, the ranking given by APPSC is not relevant and it is only the date of joining, which should govern the seniority of the first respondent in each case. The petitioner approached the Tribunal with the aforesaid grievance, by filing O.A.No.2258 of 2008, wherein he relied upon the judgment in M.RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[2], where under, the Division Bench of this Court held that when the candidate, who is permitted to join the post as per the selection list of APPSC, does not join within the time prescribed, even if the Government extends the joining time, for the purpose of giving seniority, the ranking given by APPSC is no more relevant. The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was based upon the principle that the Government has no power to extend the time for the purpose of joining and unless such time is granted by APPSC, the joining time of the candidate as per the relaxation/extension granted by the Government is not relevant. In view of that, the Tribunal, by interim order, dated 26.03.2008 in O.A.No.2258 of 2008, suspended the seniority list prepared and directed respondents 3 and 4 to treat the seniority of the first respondent in each of these writ petitions on the basis of date of joining for effecting further promotions. Based on the aforesaid interim order, the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada, vide his order, dated 09.09.2009 in Rc.No.A1/1830/2001, revised the seniority list, as a result of which, the position assigned to the first respondent in each of these writ petitions was altered giving them seniority from the date on which they joined. The revised seniority of the first respondent in each of these writ petitions, is as follows: Sl.No. Name of the Proh.& Excise Inspector S.No. in the final seniority list dt.15.03.2008 S.No. now assigned 1. V.Sudhir, Proh. & Excise Inspector 88 99(a) 2. P.V.Ramana Murthy, Proh. & Excise Inspector 98 99(b) The first respondent in each of these writ petitions approached the Tribunal seeking vacation of interim order, dated 26.03.2008 in O.A.No.2258 of 2008. It is stated that in spite of pendency of the said vacate petition and the effort of the first respondent to get the same disposed of, the Deputy Commissioner has chosen to implement the interim order without waiting for further orders of the Tribunal, by revising the seniority list affecting the position of the first respondent in each case. This lead to the first respondent in each case filing fresh O.A.s, which were numbered as O.A.Nos.10430 and 10429 of 2009 respectively, questioning order, dated 09.09.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner revising the seniority list. Filing of the said two O.A.s by the first respondent could have easily been avoided, if the vacate petition was heard and disposed of by the Tribunal. The said O.A.s, however, were taken up by the learned Member, who vide his order, dated 14.09.2009, after noticing the above-mentioned decision (1 supra) of the Supreme Court, which has reversed the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court referred to above, has suspended order, dated 09.09.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Now, the petitioner herein, who is the applicant in O.A.No.2258 of 2008 and the fourth respondent in O.A.Nos.10430 and 10429 of 2009 respectively, has filed these two writ petitions seeking a direction that interim orders, dated 14.09.2009 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.10430 and 10429 of 2009 respectively, are illegal and to issue consequential direction for hearing and disposal of O.A.No.2258 of 2008 along with O.A.Nos.10430 and 10429 of 2009. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Ratna Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. The issue so far as the assignment of seniority based upon the extension of joining time granted to the first respondent in each case by the Government, is concerned, the following extract of the decision of the Supreme Court clearly governs the issue and in that, the Supreme Court had reversed the Judgment of the Division Bench arising from the same case. “……On the other hand, the Government itself provided that the time can be extended if the Commission considered it necessary. This was merely an enabling power conferred by the Government only and the G.O. cannot be construed to be self destructive of the power of the Government, in the absence of any statutory rules as such, in this regard. The Commission appears to have been enabled to grant time to effectively monitor the operation of the main list as well as the waiting list (in order of merit) without any undue lapse of time, in case the selected candidates did not join within the indicated time period. It was an executive decision of the Government. When the Government itself extended the time, in case of the petitioner, on the basis of the reasonableness of the request, it cannot be said that in the absence of any order passed by the Commission extending the time, extension granted by the Government was without authority in law.” The said extension of joining time by the Government is therefore, being available to the first respondent in each of these writ petitions. The assignment of seniority based upon the ranking in APPSC selection cannot therefore, be said to be erroneous. The Tribunal in O.A.No.2258 of 2008 had chosen to follow the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and in the later orders, dated 14.09.2009 in O.A.Nos.10430 and 10429 of 2009 respectively, it had correctly followed the decision of the Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal had rightly suspended order, dated 09.09.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, both the writ petitions are misconceived and are liable to be dismissed. We are surprised to notice that when it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that its interim order in O.A.No.2258 of 2008 was contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court, it could have immediately taken up and disposed of the vacate petition and also, heard all the three O.A.s together so as to avoid the conflicting orders. Be that as it may, the Tribunal in the latter order has correctly given effect to the decision of the Supreme Court and since the issue involved in all the three O.A.s is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, nothing further survives for adjudication in the three O.A.s. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions are dismissed and all the three O.A.s stand disposed of in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court and thereby, the seniority position assigned to the first respondent in each of these cases based upon the ranking given by APPSC is in accordance with law. The official respondents shall take further steps with regard to the promotions based on the said seniority. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J 23rd OCTOBER, 2009. ___________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J kvni [1] AIR 2004 SC 2767 [2] 2003(1) ALD 132 (DB)