HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.15269 OF 2000 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Bhavani Prasad) The writ petitioner challenges the proceedings in Memo No.7206/34/A2/Admn.III/2000, dated 06/05/2000 of Finance & Planning (Fin.Wing-Admn.III) Department of the State Government passed in pursuance of the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1262 of 1994 dated 10/12/1999. The A.P. Administrative Tribunal was dealing in O.A.No.1262 of 1994 with the request of the writ petitioner to consider her case for appointment as an attender in Guntur District Treasury Unit with effect from 05/11/1993 by giving her seniority over and above the unofficial respondents. She claimed to have been appointed as a Money Order Writer in Guntur District Treasury Office on 21/05/1985 under the Landless Agricultural Workers Pension Scheme and her O.A.No.29621-629 of 1990 for regularization was disposed of on 16/02/1992 in terms of an earlier order in O.A.No.79468-79479 of 1990. The Supreme Court considered an appeal against the earlier order and directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicants before the Supreme Court for regularization of their services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning dated 22/04/1994. In the meanwhile, the Government issued a memo dated 14/10/1993 to the District Treasury Officer, Guntur, to appoint the Section Writers in the existing vacancies of Junior Assistants/Typists/Shroffs and Attenders duly following seniority, rule of reservation and qualifications. In consequence, the District Treasury Officer, Guntur, gave appointment orders to unofficial respondents but the writ petitioner was not given an appointment as an attender in spite of her representation on the ground of want of vacancies. The Tribunal considered the case of the writ petitioner and found that by the time of the orders of the Government dated 14/10/1993, the writ petitioner was over-aged for appointment or absorption as an attender. The Tribunal also took into account that whether the writ petitioner belonged to OC or BC-B category was also in controversy and either way she did not satisfy the requirement relating to the upper age limit prescribed under the A.P. Last Grade Service Rules. The Tribunal consequently concluded that she cannot claim to have been unjustly overlooked while absorbing the services of the other unofficial respondents and the writ petitioner cannot question the appointments of others. Still the Tribunal felt that ends of justice would be met by directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment as an attender by relaxing the upper age limit and observed that the applicant is not entitled for any notional service or financial benefits. Thus, on merits, the Tribunal did not recognize any right for the writ petitioner for being appointed as an attender as per the service rules in force and only directed the respondents to give her a concession in respect of the upper age limit prescribed to the post after due consideration. The Government, accordingly, considered the proposal of the Director of Treasuries and accounts in pursuance of the orders of the Tribunal and passed the orders dated 06/05/2000 which is assailed herein. The Government have noted that the writ petitioner was over aged by the date of the proceedings of the Government dated 14/10/1993 and she was also not considered against the OC vacancies as she belonged to BC-B category. The Government noted that A.P.Act 2 of 1994 as amended by A.P.Acts 3 of 1998 and 27 of 1998 were intended to operate against irregular appointments in Government service and the Government also particularly took into account the restriction sought to be imposed by Section 4 of the said Act in making any recruitment to any public service to any post and consequently concluded that the writ petitioner could not be appointed as an attender without any recruitment procedure. The writ petitioner contends herein that she should have been treated as a special case entitled to relaxation of age, notional seniority and consequential benefits in view of the long pending litigation. She also contended that in spite of availability of existing vacancies she was not considered for the appointment. Her claims in the writ petition are again controverted by the counter-affidavit filed by the official respondent who gave the details of the persons working as daily wage workers with the District Treasury Officer, Guntur, as on November, 1992 and the vacancy position at the relevant time after the instructions of the Government dated 14/10/1993. It was contended that all the 16 Money Order Writers were considered for absorption and only 7 could be accommodated for the various reasons and under the circumstances mentioned in the counter-affidavit which need not be replicated in detail herein. In so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, it was again reiterated that she was over aged by the time of consideration of her case for appointment and either under OC or BC-B category she could not be considered in view of the statutory regulation that came into force in the meanwhile under A.P. Act 2 of 1994 as amended from time to time. These contentions of the respondents based on the statutory provisions cannot be overlooked on any considerations of equity and when the Tribunal did not find any merits in the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment as an attender as a matter of right but only directed consideration obviously on compassionate grounds, the consideration received from the hands of the Government by the impugned proceedings dated 06/05/2000 can only be considered to have given a fresh cause of action for the writ petitioner, the remedy against which is only by again approaching the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and not by way of straight away filing the present writ petition. Sri B.Chinnapa Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana V. Krishan Lal[1], in support of his claim for the monetary benefits on notional considerations but it is seen from the decision that the direction given therein was on facts but not laying down any principles concerning the circumstances under which an employee can be considered to be entitled to backwages as a matter of right and if so to what percentage. Similarly, in I.G.R., U.P. V. Avdesh Kumar[2], the directions given by the Apex Court concerning daily wage workers are again on factual considerations and the Apex Court directed the selection committee to suitably relax the age if some of the candidates become over aged during the pendency of the litigation. Here, the writ petitioner was over aged not during the pendency of the original application or the writ petition but was over aged even before the Government issued proceedings directing the District Treasury Officer to fill up the vacancies. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioner cannot be considered to be entitled to any reliefs herein though she has unsuccessfully fought the litigation for almost a decade. As equitable considerations cannot override legal rights of the parties, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed without costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 26-11-2009 SKM [1] (2009) 8 SCC 726 [2] 1996 (4) SCALE 392