IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13556 of 2008 Between: 1 K.Ravi Shankar S/o.K.V.G.Krishna Murthy Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad 2 J.Tata Rao S/o.Late Seetanna Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad 3 T.Sivasankar Rao S/o.T.venkat Rao Vijayawada II division, KMR Sons Nagar, Yanamalakuduru Road,Behind Siris,Krishna Nagar Vijayawada,Krishna District 4 J.V.M.Sarma S/o.Late J.V.Anjaneyulu Saroornagar Division,Housing Board Complex M.J.Road,Hyderabad 5 K.Haritha W/o.K.Chitti Babu Begumpet Division VI floor,Above R.S.Brothers Ameerpet, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), AP Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Govt of AP Nampally,Hyderabad 3 Sri Sunath Kumar S/o.Not known Warangal Division, Warangal District 4 K.Venkateshwar Rao Ananthapur Division, Ananthapur District 5 Sri Narayana Prasad Eluru, West Godavari District 6 Ch.Srinivas O/o. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Nampally,Hyderabad 7 Sri P.Srinivasa Rao Adilabad Division Adilabad District 8 Ch.Manmadha Rao Eluru Division West Godavari District 9 J.S.R.Prasad Vizag II Floor HUDA Complex, Siripuram Vizag 10 M.Laxman Rao Hyderabad 11 A.Parandama Reddy O/o.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Hyderabad 12 L.V.Subbanna O/o.Dy.Commissioner (CT) Nizamabad 13 A.Laxmana Rao O/o. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Hyderbaad 14 P.Neelakanta Rao Kurnool District 15 K.V.Ramakrishna Rao 3rd floor, Mayur Kushal complex Abids, Hyderabad 16 M.G.M.Baig Nellore division, O/o.Dy.Commissioner (CT),Nellore,Nellore District 17 G.Mangapathi O/o.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Hyderabad 18 B.Surya Prakash Rao O/o.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Hyderabad 19 L.Appa Rao O/o.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Hyderabad 20 K.Venkateswarlu Guntur District 21 P.Yadagiri Reddy O/o.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Hyderabad 22 P.NARASIMHA RAO O/o.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Hyderabad 23 P.Suresh Kumar Vijayawada,Krishna District 24 B.N.V.Prasada Rao Secunderabad Division, Mayur kushal complex Beside Chermas, Abids,Hyderabad 25 D.Bhaskar Reddy Guntur Division II Guntur,Guntur District 26 SriK.Anantham O/o.commissioner of Commercial Taxes Hyderabad 27 N.V.Narasimha Rao 57 Charminar Division , Gaganvihar, M.J.road Hyderabad 28 A.Shobob S/o.Not known Guntur, Guntur District 29 K.Venugopal S/o.Not known O/o.Commisisoner of Commercial Taxes Hyderabad .....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 an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for records in OA.No.702 of 2006 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and consequently set aside the order dated 20.6.2008 passed in the said O.A. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner :BODDULURI ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.13556 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 20-06-2008 passed in O.A.No.702 of 2006 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The case of the petitioners is that though they have filed the above O.A. questioning the final seniority list in the cadre of Commercial Tax Officers dated 12-01-2005, the Tribunal dismissed the OA as premature, but given liberty to them to submit their representations raising all the objections including their placement in the seniority list. The Tribunal ought to have adjudicated the merits of the final seniority list instead of treating the proceedings as show cause notice. In fact, the final seniority list was prepared after taking into account the objections filed by the affected parties. The petitioners contend that the Tribunal misconstrued the proceedings as show cause notice and directed them to file representations, which have to be considered by first respondent in accordance with law. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for contesting respondents and learned Government Pleader. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the Tribunal ought to have adjudicated upon the final seniority list and decided the matter on merits and that the Tribunal erred in treating the impugned proceedings in O.A. as show cause notice. We find some force in the contention. 5. Learned Government Pleader while supporting the order of the Tribunal, contended that the Government has made only in-charge arrangements, but not effected regular promotions. Further, as the appeals filed by the petitioners challenging the final seniority list, have been disposed of, no cause of action survives. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 8, 14, 15 and 16 vehemently contended that when once the appeals challenging the final seniority list, have been disposed of, the writ petition becomes infructuous. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioners will not derive any benefit and no prejudice would be caused to them if the said respondents are promoted. 7. We have considered the rival contentions in the context of facts and circumstances. When the petitioners have questioned the final seniority list in the cadre of Commercial Tax Officers, the Tribunal has to adjudicate the matter on merits. Instead, the petitioners were given liberty to submit representations to the authority concerned raising all the issues. It appears, the petitioners have made representations by way of filing appeals, which were disposed of and the same is not disputed. In the above circumstances and having regard to inter se dispute in respect of seniority between the petitioners and contesting respondents, we are of the considered opinion that the matter has to be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, as per law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to dispose of O.A. afresh, on merits, and as per law, duly adjudicating upon the final seniority list, and also dispose of interlocutory application, if any, filed by the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today. Till such time, the interim order passed by this Court on 27-06- 2008 not to effect any promotions in the cadre of Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes shall continue. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 08-07-2008 bsc