IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 21411 of 1999 Between: M.Madana Mohana Rao S/o. Kannayya O/o.Directorate of Employment & Traning Hyderabad .(AP). ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt of A.P Rep byits Chief Secretary General Administtration Dept. Secretariat Building Hyderabad. 2 The Secretary of APPSC Gruhakalpa Complex , Nampally Hyderabad (AP). .....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 May be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Dy.Collector, by holding and declaring that the petitioner is also entitled for appointment as Dy.collector for the same reasons P.Thippanna and B.Ramanjaneyulu were appointed as Dy.Collector by quashing the Judgment of A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1496/1996 Dt: 12th july , 1999 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.V.SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Deputy Collector, by declaring that he is also entitled for appointment as Deputy Collector for the same reasons Sri P. Tippanna and Sri B. Ramanjaneyulu were appointed as Deputy Collectors by quashing the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 1496 of 1996 dated 12th July 1999. O.A. No. 1496 of 1996 was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to declare the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit that was given to Sri P. Thippanna, given vide G.O.Ms.No. 620, Revenue Department, dated 20.11.1995 and not appointing the applicant to the post of Deputy Collector/Commercial Tax Officer/Regional Transport Officer/D.P.O or any other higher service as illegal and arbitrary. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-applicant belongs to SC Community and he completed M.A., M.Phil. Pursuant to the notification issued by the second respondent in the month of August, 1983, the petitioner applied for Group-I Service and he exercised his option for the post and also submitted his revised options vide letter dated 4.10.1986, but the applicant was selected to the post of District Employment Officer in February, 1987. Therefore, he filed O.A.No. 17667 of 1990 for not considering him for other services as per options and the Tribunal without going into the actual issue, held that there is nothing illegal. Hence, he preferred the present O.A.No. 1496 of 1996. The Tribunal after an elaborate discussion held that the Government issued G.Os as per the directions of the Tribunal and the High Court and also the Apex Court and the applicant whose case has already been dismissed is estopped from putting up the said claim again after a lapse of 10 years and the applicant now working as Assistant Director of Employment and apart from that the Service Commission has conducted recruitment to Group-I services during 1988, 1990, 1993 and 1995 also and therefore, there is delay and laches on the part of the applicant and accordingly dismissed the O.A. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner submitted his revised options and the tribunal ought not to have dismisses the OA since the case of other candidates viz., Sri Thippanna and Sri A.V.D. Prasanna Kumar was considered in accordance with the directions given by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is correct and the reasons given therein are cogent and there are no grounds to interfere with the same and accordingly, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the impugned order. As already held by the Tribunal there is delay and laches on the part of the petitioner and the O.A filed by the applicant has been dismissed by the Tribunal because principles of res- judicata will apply and the applicant cannot put forth the similar plea which has been earlier rejected. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to exercise our certiorari jurisdiction since there is no error of jurisdiction committed by the Tribunal. The conclusion reached at by the Tribunal is based on reasonable grounds. Hence, we see no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ SANJAY KUMAR , J Dt. 28.01.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Govt of A.P Rep byits Chief Secretary General Administtration Dept. Secretariat Building Hyderabad. 2 The Secretary of APPSC Gruhakalpa Complex , Nampally Hyderabad (AP). 3. 2 CCs to G.P. for General Administration, High Court of A.P. buildings, Hyderabad. 4. 2 CD copies