IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 18077 of 1999 Between: P.Bala Muralidhar S/o.P.V.D.Prasada Rao Legal Cell, Office of the Advocates-on-Record A.P.Bhavan, 1, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Special Commissioner Government of A.P., A.P.Bhavan, 1, Ashoka Road New Delhi-110001 2 The Secretary to Government Legal Affairs, Govt. of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad-500 022 3 Smt.G.Nagachandra Veni W/o.G.P.Raju A.P.Legal Cell, Office of the Advocates on Record A.P.Bhavan, 1, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001 4 The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal rep.by the Registrar at Purani Haveli Hyderabad-500 002 .....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 a writ, order or direction more in the nature of the writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad Dt.17/08/1999 in OA.No.25/1996 and quash the same by holding it as illegal, bad, contrary to law and facts and pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.CH.GANESH The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO :18077 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 17.08.1999 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.25 of 1996. 2. The petitioner states that he had joined as Junior Assistant on 06.04.1987 on a consolidated pay of Rs.824.50ps in the Office of the Advocates-On-Record for the State of Andhra Pradesh in the Andhra Pradesh Bhavan at New Delhi. He further states that his probation was declared on 24.11.1989 whereas respondent No.3’s probation was declared on 28.11.1989. He states that as he passed the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I on 14.07.1993, he was promoted as Senior Assistant vide proceedings dated 25.03.1994. Challenging the same, respondent No.3 filed O.A.No.25 of 1996 stating that she was initially appointed on 10.08.1985, whereas the petitioner was appointed on 06.04.1987 and her probation was declared in the cadre of Junior Assistant with effect from 1.10.1987 and the petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant on 25.3.1994 ignoring her seniority. 3. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, disposed of the O.A. directing respondents 1 and 2 to review the promotion of the petitioner herein and also pass appropriate orders on the representations of the third respondent. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the O.A. is time barred as per Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. He further contended that the petitioner had passed the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I on 14.07.1993, which is pre-requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, and accordingly he was promoted on 25.03.1994 to the post of Senior Assistant. He contended that Respondent No.3 had not possessed required qualification of Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I as on the date of promotion. Further, the probation of the petitioner was declared prior to the probation of third respondent and therefore, the Tribunal has grossly erred in directing the respondents 1 and 2 to review the promotion of the petitioner also to pass appropriate orders on the representations made by the third respondent. 5. A perusal of the record would show that the petitioner though appointed subsequent to respondent No.3, his probation was declared on 24.11.1989 which was earlier to the probation of respondent No.3 and that on 14.07.1993 he passed the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I, which is pre requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. As on the date of promotion of the petitioner i.e. 25.03.1994, respondent No.3 has not possessed the required qualification of the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I, to be promoted as Senior Assistant and she has passed the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I on 02.01.1995. Further, the Tribunal erred in entertaining the O.A. as it was not filed within the limitation as contemplated under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which reads as follows: “Limitation(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application- (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made; (b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where- (a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and (b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.” That apart, though the matter was adjourned from time to time by this court for hearing the third respondent, neither her counsel was present nor was there any representation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set-aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 6. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.8.1999 in O.A. No. 25 of 1996 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J 17-02-2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LOBIS}