IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 19104 of 2007 Between: 1 Sarvepalli Sarath S/o Veera Raghavaiah Officer, Nellore R/o D.No. 4-192, Kaveri Nagar, II Lane, Kothur, Nellore-524 004 2 Paree Lakshminarayana S/o Somaiah Divisional Cooperative Officer, Ongole, R/o H. No. 35-3-69-55/9, Near CRP Quarters, Ongole. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh rep y its Principal Secretary to Government Agricultural and Cooperation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 P. Subba Rao S/o Amaraiah O/o Divisional Co-operative Officer, Tenali Guntur District. 4 K.V. Rama Rao S/o Venkateswarlu O/o district Cooperative Audit Officer, Guntur, Guntur district. 5 K. seena ReddyS/o Subbaramireddy O/o District Cooperative Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 6 Ch. Purusha Babu S/o Chandramoulaiah O/o DRDA Guntur, Guntur district. 7 D. Anil Kumar S/o Rama Rao Presently working on Deputation, APCOB, Hyderabad. 8 K. Yellamanda Rao S/o Venkateswarlu O/o Sub Divisional Cooperative Officer, Urban bank Building, Baptla, Guntur District. 9 N. Nambudraipad S/o Appa Rao Deputation commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Nampally Hyderabad. 10 D. Deena Vandanam S/o & aged not known Deputy Registrar O/o District Cooperative Audit Officer, Guntur. 11 D. Deena Vandanam S/o & age not Known O/o Divisional Co-operative Audit Officer, Tenali, Guntur District. 12 S. Venkataiah S/o age Not known Deputy Registrar O/o Divisional Co-operative Audit Officer, kandukur, Prakasam District. 13 D. Varaprasada Rao S/o & aged not known Assistant Registrar O/o Divisional Cooperative Officer, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 14 G.S. Kula Sekher S/o age now known Gudur, Nellore District. 15 S. Sangeeta Rao S/o & age not known O/o District Coop Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 16 C. Seeta Ramaiah S/o age not known O/o Divisional Coop Officer, Guntur Guntur District. 17 B. Sambasiva Rao S/o & age not known O/o District Coop Audit Officer, Ongole Prakasam District. 18 K. Hemasundara Raju S/o & age not known Deputation Superintendent of Police Office, Nellore. 19 N. Wilson Immanuel S/o age not Known, O/o Divisional coop. Officer, Guntur. 20 A. Koteswara Rao S/o & age not known Assistant Registrar, O/o District Cooperative Audit Officer Guntur 21 Suresh Babu S/o & age Not Known, O/o District Cooperative Audit Officer, Guntur. 22 L. Koteswara Rao S/o & Age Not Known O/o District Cooperative Audit Officer, Guntur. 23 A. Surya Prakash Rao S/o age Not Known O/o DiVisional Cooperative Officer, Tenali, Guntur District. 24 P. Rajasekhar Assistant Registrar/Sub Officer, GDCC bank Limited, Gurajala, Guntur District. 25 Smt. V. Ushasree, Assistant Registrar O/o district Cooperative Officer, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ,order or direction particularly one inthe nature of Writ of after calling for therecords pertainingto the order in O.A. No. 5634/2005 with VMAS. 1198/2005 & 1224./2005 dated 06-04-2006 onthe file of the Andhra Pradesh administrative Tribunal, Hydeabad and quashthe same as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.PANDURANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.19104 of 2007 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Ramulu) This writ petition is filed challenging the order made in O.A.No.5634 of 2005 with V.M.A.Nos.1198 and 1224 of 2005 dated 6.4.2006 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Petitioners herein are not parties to the above O.A. They are working as Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies in Zone-III of the State. The Tribunal, following the judgment rendered in O.A.No.5043 of 2004 dated 21.6.2005 as well as the orders passed in O.A.No.244 of 2005 dated 22.2.2006 and O.A.No.5327 of 2005 dated 14.2.2005, disposed of the present O.A.No.5634 of 2005 by its order dated 6.4.2006 with a direction to the respondents to take action in terms of the findings in the above O.As. The main grievance of the petitioners is that in view of the ratio laid down in the orders passed in the above O.As., their seniority in Zone-III was revised. Being aggrieved by the same, they filed the present writ petition seeking leave of this Court, which was granted. While admitting the writ petition, interim suspension of the impugned order was granted. The learned counsel for petitioners Mr.M.Panduranga Rao strenuously contended that the very judgment in O.A.No.5634 of 2005 dated 6.4.2006 is not in existence in view of the fact that questioning the similar order, W.P.No.8318 of 2005 was filed and this Court by order dated 9.10.2007 while setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal, remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and the petitioners therein were directed to be impleaded after filing appropriate application for their impleadment. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for petitioners, the preparation of revised seniority list on the basis of ratio laid down in the order passed in O.A.No.5634 of 2005 in Zone-III itself was illegal. May be true. Be that as it may, the subsequent events that had taken place after disposal of the above O.A. are required to be considered. On the basis of ratio laid down in the order passed in O.A.No.5634 of 2005, a notice was given calling objections as to seniority of petitioners. The learned counsel states that the ratio laid down in O.A.No.5634 of 2005 is no more available, therefore consideration of such ratio which is not applicable to Zone-III ought not to have taken into consideration by the authorities while preparing the final seniority list. This also appears to be not correct, but the fact remains that the applicants therein do not belong to Zone-II. All the judgments rendered earlier till date were in respect of Zone-II. May be, the ratio laid down in the judgments in the above O.As. that arose from Zone-II was taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding seniority of the personnel in Zone-III. That itself does not mean that the judgment rendered in O.A.No.5634 of 2005 need to be revised. The petitioners are not affected parties since they hail from Zone-III and O.A.No.5634 of 2005 relates to Zone-II and the inter se seniority of the personnel in Zone-II was directed to be considered. In view of this, the judgment in O.A.No.5634 of 2005 cannot be challenged in view of the order passed in W.P.No.8318 of 2005 dated 9.10.2007. It is also given to understand that the final seniority list in respect of promotees was prepared on 25.6.2007 and in respect of direct recruits, it was prepared on 24.8.2007 and further the integrated seniority list of all the zones was also prepared on 24.8.2007. Even if any errata are issued to the final seniority list dated 25.6.2007 among the promotees of Zone-III, petitioners are also entitled to challenge the same along with final seniority list dated 25.6.2007. Under those circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the very writ petition is not maintainable. But nonetheless we cannot ignore the fact that in view of ratio laid down in O.A.No.5634 of 2005, the cases of petitioners were considered. May be, they are also affected, but that does not mean that they cannot work out their remedies as available under law. If any final seniority list is prepared in respect of Zone-III as per the ratio laid down in O.A.No.5634 of 2005 and batch, it is always open for the petitioners to work out their remedies by way of challenging the final seniority list, if any prepared, and all the questions that may arise for consideration may have to be considered by the Tribunal without prejudice to the judgment rendered in O.A.No.5634 of 2005 dated 6.4.2006 or those which forms the basis for rendering the said judgment. Subject to above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 3.7.2008 DA THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.19104 of 2007 (Order of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Ramulu) 3.7.2008