HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No. 11106 OF 2009. DATED 7T H SEPTEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government, Transport, Roads,& Buildings Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad and anr …..Petitioners and Sri G.Yedukondalu ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No. 11106 of 2009. ORDER: (Per Honourable Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) Heard the learned Government for Services-II appearing for the petitioners and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent. At their request, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the interlocutory stage. The petitioners herein are the Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads & Buildings Department, and, the Engineer-in-Chief (Roads & Buildings). They ﬁled the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking to assail the correctness of the order dated 25.03.2009 passed in O.A.No. 10064 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The said OA was ﬁled by the respondent herein under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, wherein he sought a declaration that the action of the petitioners herein in not including him in the panel of Deputy Executive Engineers in Zone-II for promotion against 58th slot earmarked for STs and further the action of the second petitioner as detrimental to the policy of the Government in introducing the Rule of Reservation for SCs/STs in promotions, are in violation of Articles 14,16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The learned Member of the Tribunal while disposing of the said OA by an order dated 25.03.2009, directed the petitioners herein to consider the case of the respondent. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: “ Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant and if no other eligible candidate is available for 58th slot in the roaster of ST (Women), in accordance with the proviso to Rule 3 as extracted above and to pass necessary orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order” The learned Government Pleader appearing for the writ petitioners submitted that instead of restricting the prayer of the respondent to consider his case in accordance with the proviso of Rule 3 of the A.P. Roads and Buildings Engineering Service Rules, 1996, the Tribunal ought to have observed that the said consideration shall be in accordance with law, inasmuch as the said aspect of consideration and reservation require to be considered from diﬀerent angles and other rules governing the ﬁeld. To observe the same in the operative portion of the said order, there is no serious objection or demur on the part of the learned Counsel for the respondent. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent, if no other eligible candidate is available for 58th slot in the roaster of STs (Women) in accordance with the Rules governing the subject matter of ﬁeld and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ----------------------------------------- JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO --------------------------------------- JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA 7T H SEPTEMBER, 2010. Msnr.