THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos.17403 of 2003 & 12897 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.17403 of 2003 This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in re-designating the respondents 4 to 117 as Attenders in the light of the orders passed in W.P.No.15145 of 2000 dated 31.1.2003 without considering the objections of the petitioner-Union, whose members have not been added as parties to the said writ petition though they are directly affected persons, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice as well as Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and further to declare that the judgment passed in W.P.No.15145 of 2000 dated 31.1.2003 is not binding on the members of the petitioner-Union and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to take any further steps pursuant thereto. It appears, the members of petitioner-Union are the Class-IV employees of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (for short ‘TTD’). They have filed the present writ petition seeking to declare the judgment rendered in W.P.No.15145 of 2000 dated 31.1.2003 as violative of principles of natural justice and the same is not binding on them. It appears, respondents 4 to 117, who were working in various capacities in TTD since 1981 onwards had filed W.P.No.15145 of 2000 before this Court seeking a direction to the official respondents therein to treat them as Attenders in the regular cadre of employment with TTD. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 31.1.2003 holding that the respondents 4 to 117 are entitled for relief of re-designation as Attenders on their absorption from the date on which they were regularly absorbed with scale of pay i.e. with effect from 1.8.1991 and further directed the respondents to re-designate them as Attenders in the regular establishment. It was further held that respondents 4 to 117 are entitled to all other consequential benefits, if any. In pursuance of the said order, the services of respondents 4 to 117 were regularized and they were re-designated as Attenders with effect from 1.8.1991. It is the case of the members of the petitioner-Union that they have been recruited against the cadre post of Attender in the year 1992 against sanctioned posts after subjecting to due selection process, whereas respondents 4 to 117, who were originally working as Volunteers, were re-designated as Attenders in view of the order passed in W.P.No.15145 of 2000 dated 31.1.2003 with effect from 1.8.1991 and now, the official respondents are intending to treat the members of petitioner Union as juniors to respondents 4 to 117 on the ground that their services were regularized with effect from 1.8.1991, though in the cadre of Volunteer, which was re-designated as Attender in the cadre strength post, as per the judgment of this Court in the above writ petition. Now it is the grievance of the members of the petitioner union that; firstly the judgment rendered in the above writ petition is not binding on them, since they were not parties to the said writ petition and also in view of the fact that the TTD in its counter, has taken objection for allowing the writ petition stating that it would create problem of seniority between members of the petitioner union and respondents 4 to 117; secondly, assuming that the respondents 4 to 117 are converted into the cadre of Attender, but that was practically done only with effect from 14.5.2001, therefore the respondents 4 to 117 must be shown below the members of Petitioner-Union in the seniority list of Attenders. Though the services of respondents 4 to 117 were regularized in the ex-cadre post of volunteer with effect from 1.8.1991, they are not entitled for reckoning their seniority with effect from 1.8.1991, since they were converted as regular Attenders only in the year 2001, therefore they cannot march over the members of petitioner-Union for reckoning seniority in the cadre of Attender. The members of petitioner-Union were recruited against the sanctioned posts of Attenders in the regular cadre; therefore, they have a right to reckon their seniority over and above the respondents 4 to 117. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record. Before adverting to the merits and de-merits of the case, it may be necessary to notice that the learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the very Writ Petition is not maintainable, particularly, questioning the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, which attained finality. The only course left was to either file an appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.15145 of 2000, dated 31-1-2003 or a petition seeking to review the said Judgment. However, in this regard, the learned counsel for petitioner relied upon a judgment reported in PALAVALASA PADMANABHAM v. STATE OF A.P.[1], wherein it was held: “3. The view expressed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition is not correct view in law in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in SHIVDEO SINGH v STATE OF PUNJAB. It was held that second writ petition was maintainable in certain circumstances. The Court held that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution of India to preclude the High Court from exercising the powers of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. In the said case in an earlier writ petition filed by one set of persons, affected and interested persons were not made party and the affected persons later on filed writ petition. High Court entertained the writ petition allowing the same and the aggrieved persons were directed to be added as party in the earlier writ petition and directed the earlier writ petition to be disposed of on merits. Thus the second writ petition filed was held to be maintainable and High Court was held to be having jurisdiction in reviewing its previous order at the instance of those who were not impleaded as party in the earlier writ petition. Ratio of the said decision was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in AGRICULTURE MARKET COMMITTEE v STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. Facts of the instant case are similar to the one in SHIVDEO SINGH's case (1 supra ) ……” and submitted that in view of the above decision, the Judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.15145 of 2000, dated 31-1-2003 can be questioned by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no necessity of delving deep into this aspect, as the proposition laid down in the above Judgment was not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for respondents. It is suffice to notice that under G.O.Ms.No.391, dated 6.5.1991, the Executive Officer, TTD reported to the Government that there were 1235 persons working as Volunteers, Unit Workers including Guides in TTD and requested to issue orders to absorb and regularize their services in the regular establishment of TTD by extending regular scale of pay etc. The Government after careful consideration of the proposals of the Executive Officer, accorded sanction and accordingly 1235 persons were absorbed into various departments, among them respondents 4 to 117 were absorbed as Volunteers and their services were regularized. However, in view of the judgment passed in W.P.No.15145 of 2000 dated 31.1.2003, they were all absorbed into regular cadre of Attenders. It may be further noticed that in the above judgment, the question of fixing of seniority between direct recruits i.e. members of petitioner union and respondents 4 to 117 did not arise for consideration. In the above judgment, it was held that since there were no cadre strength posts of Unit Workers/Volunteers, the official respondents were directed to treat respondents 4 to 117 as Attenders, which is one of the regular cadre strength posts. In the above judgment, the status of respondents 4 to 117 was made clear, but that itself does not mean that they are entitled to march over the members of petitioner-Union, who were appointed in the regular cadre of Attenders. It is a fact that as on the date of conversion, all the members of petitioner-Union were already recruited against cadre posts of Attenders and their seniority list in the cadre of Attender was drawn and in fact some of them were promoted to higher posts. Whereas the respondents 4 to 117 who were originally working in the ex-cadre post of Volunteers/Unit Workers, were converted and re-designated as Attenders only in view of judgment of this Court. Therefore, the real question is not as to the validity of the judgment in W.P.No.15145 of 2000, but the question is whether the members of Petitioner-Union could be treated as seniors to respondents 4 to 117 in view of judgment passed in W.P.No.15145 of 2000 dated 31.1.2003. In this regard, TTD has not undertaken any exercise as to preparing the inter se seniority list of members of petitioner Union and respondents 4 to 117 and who should be shown as seniors and who should be shown as juniors by issuing proper notices to all the incumbents. Admittedly, though the respondents 4 to 117 were absorbed in the cadre of Attenders in view of judgment of this Court, as per G.O.Ms.No.391 dated 6.5.1991 they were directed to be absorbed into ex-cadre strength of Volunteers/Unit Workers. Therefore, it is for the respondent-TTD to take a decision as to the seniority of members of petitioner-Union vis-à-vis respondents 4 to 117 in the cadre of Attenders after issuing notices to all the affected persons and thereafter prepare a seniority list, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. W.P.No.12897 of 2005 For the reasons aforementioned, this writ petition is liable to be disposed of in terms of the said Judgment in Writ Petition No.17403 of 2003 and is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 13.6.2008 DA [1] . 2003(4) ALT 559