THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.NO.28022 of 2009 and 258 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) Both these writ petitions are filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the common order dated 15.10.2009 passed in O.A.Nos.7446 and 8039 of 2008 and batch by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department on 31.01.1977 and later, promoted as Assistant Section Officer, Assistant Secretary to Government and now as Deputy Secretary on various dates. The first respondent had issued final seniority list in the category of Assistant Section Officer vide G.O.Ms.No.186 dated 20.06.2003 wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.449 and his date of regularization was shown as 28.08.1980 and that the said seniority list was issued subject to the final outcome of W.P.Nos.11367 and 11368 of 2002. Thereafter, on 22.08.2003, the said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court, leaving their right open to the aggrieved individuals to question the final integrated seniority list on all such grounds as are available to them in law. While so, respondents 2 to 7, after lapse of three years from the date of issuance of the said G.O., made representations to the first respondent requesting to revise the said final seniority list. Based on such representations, the first respondent issued a memo dated 19.07.2007 calling for objections, if any, from the affected individuals on the proposals for revision of the seniority. The petitioner stated that though he submitted his objections on 18.08.2007, without considering the same, the first respondent revised the seniority list vide G.O.Ms.No.341 dated 02.06.2008, wherein the date of regularization of the petitioner was altered from 28.08.1980 to 15.10.1981 and his place was changed from Sl.No.449 to 663-A. Challenging the said G.O., the petitioner filed O.A.No.7446 of 2008, wherein the Tribunal issued an interim direction, based on which, he was promoted as Deputy Secretary on 20.09.2008. Aggrieved by the said promotion, the 6th and 7th respondents in W.P.No.28022 of 2009 have filed O.A.Nos.8039 and 8040 of 2008 respectively. The Tribunal clubbed all these OAs along with the other O.As and after consideration of the material on record, dismissed O.A.No.7446 of 2008 and allowed O.A.Nos.8039 and 8040 of 2008 through the common order impugned. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.28022 of 2009 and 258 of 2010 against the common order of dismissing O.A.No.7446 of 2008 and allowing O.A.No.8039 of 2008 respectively. 3. Respondents 5 and 6 in W.P.No.28022 of 2009 filed counter stating that on noticing mistakes in G.O.Ms.No.186 dated 20.06.2003, they made representations seeking rectification and placement of their names at appropriate places. Having considered those representations, the first respondent issued revised G.O.Ms.No.341 dated 02.06.2008, wherein the placement of the 5th and 6th respondents was correctly shown and the placement of the petitioner was changed from Sl.No.449 to 663-A. It is stated that as the petitioner suffered reversion twice and he continuously officiated the post of Assistant Section Officer with effect from 15.10.1981, and for that reason, his place of seniority was altered from Sl.No.449 to 663-A. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the first respondent has not issued any notice to the petitioner calling for objections, if any, before changing his placement from Sl.No.448 to 663-A and date of regularization from 28.08.1980 to 15.10.1981, which is contrary to the provisions of law and because of the said alteration, the petitioner is suffered irreparable injury. He further contended that based on the representations made by the unofficial respondents, after lapse of three years from G.O.Ms.No.186 dated 20.06.2003, issuance of the impugned G.O., whereby the seniority of the petitioner has been altered, by the first respondent is illegal and bad in law. He further contended that when once the final integrated seniority list was prepared, it cannot be altered, that too, after lapse of five years. 6. Sri K.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6, reiterating the counter averments, contended that since the petitioner reverted twice and he continuously officiated the post of Assistant Section Officer with effect from 15.10.1981, his place of seniority was changed. He further contended that when this Court left open the right of the aggrieved individuals to question the final integrated seniority list as per the order dated 22.08.2003 in W.P.Nos.11367 and 11368 of 2002, the petitioner without questioning G.O.Ms.No.186 dated 20.06.2003, challenged G.O.Ms.No.341 dated 02.06.2008 and that too, after lapse of five years, which he is not entitled to do so. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that the Tribunal after considering all the aspects into consideration has passed the order impugned, which needs no interference by this Court. 8. Admittedly, the final seniority list of the Assistant Section Officers vide G.O.Ms.No.186 dated 20.06.2003 was issued subject to the final outcome of W.P.Nos.11367 and 11368 of 2002. While disposing the said writ petitions on 22.08.2003, this Court has given liberty to the aggrieved individuals to question the final integrated seniority list. So, as per the said direction, the seniority in G.O.Ms.No.186 dated 20.06.2003 is to be re-fixed by inviting objections from the aggrieved persons including the petitioner. Thereafter, the unofficial respondents, after noticing the mistakes in the said GO, made their representations after lapse of three years seeking rectification and placement of their names at appropriate places. The said delay of three years has not been explained by them. Based on the representations, the first respondent has issued revised seniority list vide G.O.Ms.No.341, dated 02.06.2008 whereby the placement of the petitioner and his date of regularization were altered. While doing so, the first respondent has not given any notice to the petitioner, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and has not recorded any reasons with regard to the alterations made in the seniority list. Further, the Tribunal in the impugned order has not dealt with the aspect of delay of five years in issuing G.O.Ms.No.341 and also the reasons for revising it by the first respondent, and has not recorded any finding as to the allowing of O.A.Nos.8039 and 8040 of 2008 except mentioning G.O.Ms.No.341 dated 02.06.2008 as valid and directing the Government to promote the applicants therein to the post of Deputy Secretary with effect from the date of promotion of the applicants in O.A Nos.7342, 7423 and 7446 of 2008 with all consequential benefits. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from serious infirmity insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 9. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order impugned insofar as the petitioner is concerned and remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration insofar as the petitioner is concerned and dispose of the same after affording him an opportunity of hearing, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:15.02.2010 sj