THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WP Nos.10179 of 2005 and WP NO.3365 of 2006 Common Order: (Per Sri GM, J) Both Writ Petitions are filed by N. Shivaram Prasad. Insofar as Writ Petition No.10179 of 2005 is concerned it was filed against the order dated 26-4- 2005 in O.A.No.6900 of 2004 and consequently seeks a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to treat the writ petitioner as senior to the 3rd respondent in the category of Motor Vehicles Inspector and to consider his case for promotion as Regional Transport Officer in multi zone I/Unit ahead of the 3rd respondent. N. Shivaram Prasad filed O.A.No.6900 of 2004 before the Tribunal seeking declaration that the action of the official respondents in declaring the regularization of the 3rd respondent – R. Nageswara Rao retrospectively contrary to the Statutory Rules and contrary to the seniority list issued by the 2nd respondent on 7.5.2004 as arbitrary and illegal. The Tribunal on consideration of the claims of the rival parties, opined that since the writ petitioner made allegations of fraud against the 3rd respondent and that the 3rd respondent too made allegations against the petitioner that he wiped out the evidence from the records of the official respondents, the Tribunal thought it fit that it cannot go into the allegations and counter allegations and further the seniority list was not yet finalized, therefore held that the O.A. is not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to agitate against the final orders to be passed by the official respondents. Questioning the said orders passed by the Tribunal the Writ Petition No.10179 of 2005 has been filed. Another W.P. No.3365 of 2006 has been filed by N. Shivaram Prasad challenging order dated 8.2.2006 passed in O.A.No.5441 of 2005 by the Tribunal and also orders dated 8.2.2006 passed in MA No.2864 of 2005 in the said O.A. O.A.No.5441 of 2005 was filed by R. Nageswara Rao seeking a direction to the respondents to promote him as Regional Transport Officer as per the empanelment on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits by ignoring the charge memo dated 17.7.2005. The Tribunal on adjudication of the matter allowed the O.A. holding that the 3rd respondent herein, is entitled to be promoted as Regional Transport Officer on par with his juniors promoted pursuant to the recommendations of the Screening Committee dated 15-9-2004 with all consequential benefits and the said promotion shall be subject to the further orders in W.P.No.10179 of 2005 and dismissed the implead petition MA No.2864 of 2005. Questioning the above orders passed by the Tribunal, N. Shivaram Prasad filed the Writ Petition No.3365 of 2006. It is seen from the record submitted by the official respondents that N. Sivarama Prasad was appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicles inspector with effect from 11-6-1990 and his promotion was declared with effect from 10-6-1992 in Zone IV and services were regularized with effect from 11-6-1990 in the cadre of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. He was promoted as Motor Vehicles Inspector vide proceedings dated 4-9-198 and reported for duty on 8-1-1998 and his probation was declared in the cadre of Motor Vehicles Inspector with effect from 8-9-1999 and services were regularized vide proceedings dated 22-12-1999. R. Nageswara Rao, respondent no.3 was appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector with effect from 13-4-1988 in Zone II and his probation was declared as MVI with effect from 25- 7-1992. As per Rule 16(h) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 his probation was declared with effect from 25-7-1992 i.e. the last date of passing test and his services were regularized with effect from 26-7-1990 in the cadre of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. The 3rd respondent were promoted and reported as Motor Vehicles Inspector on 21-9-1998 vide proceedings dated 4.9.1998. For the purpose of filling up the post of Regional Transport Officer in unit I all the Motor Vehicle Inspectors working in various zones have to be included as one unit by preparing a seniority list. It is further seen from the record that a Screening Committee meeting was held on 15-9-2004 for the panel year 2004-2005. As the inter se seniority was not finalized in the cadre of Motor Vehicle Inspector, the service particulars of the Schedule Tribe candidates have been called for from the District Officers and as per the reports the name of the 3rd respondent was recommended for inclusion in the panel against Scheduled Tribe community. At that time a complaint was received against the 3rd respondent stating that he committed certain irregularities, hence charges were framed and later those charges were dropped vide proceedings dated 15-3-2005. It appears that the writ petitioner filed O.As. before the Tribunal and that in O.A.No.6900 of 2004 the Tribunal held that the said O.A.as not maintainable. Subsequently, on a complaint that 3rd respondent has falsely entered his date of commencement and declaration of probation in his service register and attested it, charges were framed against him. In the meanwhile the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.10179 of 2005 before this Court and obtained interim order dated 29-4-2005 to the effect that if any orders are passed either promoting R.3 or any other person, the promotions will be subject to the result of the main writ petition. It appears that since charge memo is pending against the 3rd respondent the name of the writ petitioner was recommended for inclusion in the Regional Transport Officer’s panel subject to finalization of seniority list and subject to outcome of the pending cases and thus the petitioner was promoted as Regional Transport Officer under 8ht point of ST category and was posted in the a vacancy on 2-12-2005 and reported for duty as such on 5-12-2005. The 3rd respondent also filed O.A.No.5441 of 2005 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the O.A. No.5441 of 2006 preferred by the 3rd respondent by its order dated 8.6.2006 holding that he is entitled to be promoted as Regional Transport Officer on par with his juniors promoted pursuant to the recommendations of the Screening Committee held on 15-9-2004 subject to final orders in W.P.No.10179 of 2005. The petitioner preferred W.P.No.3365 of 2006 challenging the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.5441 of 2005 preferred by the 3rd respondent. While matters stood thus, the Transport Commissioner has awarded the punishment of postponement of one annual increment with cumulative effect against the 3rd respondent in R.C.No.022/C4/2005 dated 16/11/2006 on the charges framed against him and the 3rd respondent preferred an appeal before the Government. The Government by its proceedings dated 8-6-2007 set aside the orders of the Transport Commissioner awarding the punishment of postponement of one annual increment with cumulative effect on the 3rd respondent. The Transport Commissioner has prepared a provisional inter-se-seniority list of Motor Vehicle Inspectors comprising Zone-I to Zone IV vide memo dated 22-3-2006 and that some of the MVIs approached the Tribunal and obtained status quo orders in OA No.7169 of 2006 and batch. That Respondent no.3 filed another O.A.No.3320 of 2007 before the Tribunal to consider his case for promotion as Regional Transport Officer basing on the ranking in the final seniority list dated 13-10- 2006 and that the Tribunal passed interim orders dated 28-6-2007 directing the authorities to consider the case of the applicant therein for promotion in accordance with rules. It is also represented that after hearing all the objections the official respondents have prepared final seniority list on 30-10-2006 in which the petitioner was placed at serial no.83 whereas the respondent no.3 was placed at serial no.84. In view of final seniority list in the cadre of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Multi Zone I, the petitioner has become senior to respondent no.3. Considering the fact that the post of Regional Transport Officer has been merged to Zonal post and that the petitioner was shown as senior and unofficial respondent was shown as junior to him and that both of them have been promoted, in the circumstances, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petitions with observation that it is for the Government to consider the date of regularizations from which date they are entitled in accordance with the rules within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is further clarified that for further promotions the DPC has to be constituted and consider the cases as and when the promotions arises to the higher cadre. Since the petitioner claims to have made representation to the authorities, it is open to the authorities to examine the matter with reference to the regularization in the cadre of Motor Vehicle Inspector. With the above directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. _________ GM, J _______ GC, J Kk/25-8-2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WP Nos.10179 of 2005 and WP NO.3365 of 2006 25-8-2010