HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA W.P.Nos.1807 and 7430 of 2007 Date: 11-04-2011 W.P.NO.1807 of 2007: Between: The Principal Secretary to Government, Industries & Commerce Department, and another ……… Petitioners and Sri H. Shivram ……… Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA W.P.Nos.1807 and 7430 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: (Per BPR, J) Since these two writ petitions are not only filed against the very same order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), but also raise common grievance at the instance of the respective petitioners, hence, they are taken up together for disposal. In W.P.No.1807 of 2007, the petitioners represent the Government of Andhra Pradesh who are aggrieved against the orders passed by the Tribunal, allowing the application filed by the sole respondent herein under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, in O.A.No.1951 of 2006, dated 18-01-2007, where he assailed successfully the correctness of the impugned proceedings No.22/1/2004/0473/0473/FD-3, dated 17-03-2006 as illegal and the same was set aside. In the other writ in W.P.No.7430 of 2007, the petitioner is an aggrieved person who, though a third party, claims that the very same orders in O.A.No.1951 of 2006 as mentioned above affect his substantive rights. Hence, he files the separate writ. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for services appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.1807 of 2007 and for the respondents in W.P.No.7430 of 2007 and also Dr. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.7430 of 2007 and Sri A. Sai Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in W.P.No.1807 of 2007. We have also heard Sri Poodattu Amarender appearing for the contesting respondent in W.P.No.7430 of 2007. The brief facts arising in the present case are that the original applicant in O.A.No.1951 of 2006 approached the Tribunal contending that initially he was appointed as a Supervisor in the Industries Department in the year 1981 and was later promoted as Assistant Director in 1988, as Deputy Director in 1994 and as Joint director on 13-08-2002. He belongs to ST community. It is his claim that since the post of Deputy Director is third level gazetted category, the impugned proceedings, dated 17-03-2006 fixing the final seniority is wholly illegal. The said claim was contested by the respondents therein including the Government, who is also the petitioner herein, to the effect that the Head of the Department is the appointing authority for the second level gazetted posts in the state service as well as in respect of the initial category of gazetted post, and Government is the appointing authority for third level gazetted post and above in the state service. The first level gazetted post is the Assistant Director of Industries and the second level gazetted post is the Deputy Director of Industries. The third level gazetted post is Joint Director of Industries for which the Government is the appointing authority. The Government, by issuing a letter, dated 17-01-2005, clarified that as per G.O.Ms.No.230, GAD, dated 22-05-1999 the Commissioner of Industries is the appointing authority for the first and second level gazetted categories i.e., the Assistant Director of Industries and the Deputy Director of Industries, and the Commissioner of Industries, being the appointing authority for Deputy Director of Industries, has to finalize the seniority list in the cadre. Hence, in view of the said clarification, the seniority list has been finalized for the period from 1956 to 1998. Therefore, the plea of the applicant that the entire exercise is without jurisdiction, is not correct. Further in regard to the rule of reservation, it is stated that it applies only after 14-02-2003 in all categories where cadre strength is more than five as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 14-02-2003. Since the applicant was promoted in the cadre of Deputy Director of Industries in the year 1994 itself i.e., much earlier to 14-02-2003, the rule of reservation has no application. Hence, the application is liable to be rejected. With these pleadings background and also the submissions made across from both sides, the Tribunal addressed itself on the core question as to whether the Commissioner of Industries is the appointing authority for the post of Deputy Director of Industries and also whether the impugned seniority list is legal. While so, the Tribunal by taking into account Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Industries Service Rules, observed that under the said Rule, the appointing authority to the post under category 4 is the Head of the Department, whereunder the posts of Assistant Director, Assistant Director (Statistics) and Senior Chemist, ITDL, falls, and the post of Deputy Director of Industries does not come well within, and hence, the plea of the Government that the post of Industrial Promotion Officer is still coming under the purview of the aforesaid Rule is not correct. Further in regard to G.O.Ms.No.230, dated 22-05-1999, the Regional Officer or the Head of the Department are only appointing authorities for the first and second level gazetted categories and as per the aforesaid Rule, for the third level gazetted post and above in the state service, the State is the appointing authority. In view of the same, the contention of the applicant was straightaway accepted without any demur on the part of the Government and the application was allowed. Falling back to the contentions raised even in this Court, it only relates back to the very same pleas as set forth before the Tribunal and we do not find any much movement on the objections raised either by the Government or even by the third party who feels aggrieved and who approached the Court challenging the very same order. Except reiterating the contentions set forth before the Tribunal, nothing has been pointed out either legally or otherwise to come to a different conclusion. In view of the same, necessarily the Tribunal found that the State is the appointing authority and therefore, the impugned proceedings are rightly held to be totally without jurisdiction, and the same cannot be found fault with, nor needs to be varied. Thus we are in entire agreement with the finding of the Tribunal and also the direction given for finalization of the seniority list. During the course of arguments, it has been brought to our notice that as per G.O.Ms.No.90, Industries & Commerce (IE) Department, dated 24-04-2007, which has been published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, Part-I Extraordinary, No.288, dated 15-05- 2007, the final seniority list of Joint Directors of Industries appointed from 01-09-1974 to 31-08-2005, has already been finalized. Be that as it may. Whatever the action, which has been taken by the authorities in this regard in respect of the seniority in different cadres and different levels, necessarily should be a follow up to the direction given by the Tribunal and accordingly, we do not find any substance in the contentions urged on behalf of both the parties in both the writ petitions. If need be, let there be a re-exercise from inception. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J Date: 11-04-2011 YCR