THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 19301 of 2008 Dated: 9-11-2011 Between M.Srinath Reddy …Petitioner And The Medical Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Ramachandrapuram, Medak District and others …Respondents Oral order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) This misconceived writ petition is directed against the order of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal dated 14-8-2008 in O.A.No. 2618 of 2005. The petitioner filed the application before the Tribunal assailing the order dated 10-5-2005 passed by the 1st respondent, which to the extent material and relevant reads as under: “With reference to the subject and this office proceedings fourth cited, Sri Syed Muneeruddin, was reinstated as Junior Assistant in pursuance of the orders of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 5810 of 2004. He was reported for duty on the Forenoon of 10- 06-2005. Consequently Sri M.Sreenath Reddy, Jr.Asst. shall stand reverted as Junior Cashier with effect from the Forenoon of 10-06-2005 for want of vacancy in the cadre of Junior Assistant.” The relevant facts are that the 3rd respondent (it is stated across the bar by Sri Amarender, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that this respondent died in 2010) absconded from duty and in that casual vacancy the petitioner/applicant was temporarily promoted from the category of Junior Cashier, as Junior Assistant by proceedings dated 21-11-1997. The order of appointment clearly spelt out the tenuous nature of the vacancy and his ad hoc tenure. The order clearly stipulated that his appointment is purely temporary and whenever the 3rd respondent reports for duty, the petitioner is liable to be reverted to his original post. The 3rd respondent’s services were terminated, against which he filed O.A.No.5810 of 2004, which was allowed by the Tribunal and consequently the 3rd respondent was directed to be reinstated. As a consequence, by the impugned order, while recording the reinstatement of the 3rd respondent into service vide proceedings dated. 6-6-2005, the petitioner was reverted from his temporary position as Junior Assistant to his substantive position as Junior Cashier. It would appear that during the period when the 3rd respondent’s services were terminated and his reinstatement, the applicant was regularized in the post of Junior Assistant and his probation declared by an order dated 30-10-2003. In the above facts and circumstances, the learned Tribunal found no legal basis for a challenge to the proceedings terminating the services of the petitioner from the category of Junior Assistant and reverting him to the substantive post of Junior Cashier. We concur. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 9th November, 2011 ________________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J GRR