THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.116 OF 2007 Dt.28.10.2009 Between: P.N.H.Nalini Devi .. Petitioner And The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.116 OF 2007 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) O.A. filed by the petitioner in O.A.SR.No.8841 of 2004 seeking that she is entitled for notional promotion to the cadre of Lecturer in English with effect from 6.11.1985 on par with similarly situated Smt.G.Indira Vasantha with all consequential reliefs, was not entertained by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal as the said O.A was filed along with M.A.No.3198 of 2004 seeking condonation of delay. The said application for condonation of delay has been rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 11.11.2004 on the ground that the delay is of four years four months is not justified. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition is filed. Heard both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the main relief sought for in the O.A. was seeking parity with G.Indira Vasantha, who was granted benefit of notional promotion vide proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education in Rc.No.32/GC.II-2/95, dated 26.6.1998 with effect from 6.11.1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said G.Indira Vasantha and the petitioner herein were appointed vide common proceedings of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education in Rc.No.1544/GC- II-2/93, dated 28.7.1993. Further both of them were regularized in the category of Lecturers in English vide common proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education in Rc.No.78/Ser.II-2/2002, dated 1.6.2002. It is her case that both of them appealed to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to restore their seniority with respective effect from 1985. However, the said benefit was given to G.Indira Vasantha vide proceedings dated 17.12.1991, but the case of the petitioner was not considered. The petitioner made representations on 1.9.1998, 19.4.2000 and the last representation of the petitioner is 2.8.2005. The said representations of the petitioner also states that she as well as G.Indira Vasantha simultaneously applied for the same benefit while the benefit of notional retrospective promotion was granted to her, but the same was not granted to the petitioner whereupon she was forced to approach the Tribunal for the relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that actually there is no delay in view of the parity stated by her and the Tribunal ought not to have rejected her request. In our view, the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the petitioner was aggrieved by inaction in not granting parity in spite of three representations. Further, mere length of delay was not decisive when complaint of petitioner is against not extending same benefit to her and when petitioner had explained the circumstances. We are of the view that the application for condonation of delay ought to have been considered by the Tribunal favourably even subject to payment of costs. However, the non-consideration of the application prima facie goes in favour of the petitioner in view of the facts stated above where parity in favour of the petitioner on par with the said G.Indira Vasantha appears to be justified. Prima facie, we are therefore of the opinion that the interests of justice would be served if we direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 2.8.2005 for extending the relief on par with G.Indira Vasantha as referred to above and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s representation dated 2.8.2005. Since sufficient time is lapsed from the date of the said representation, petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education along with copies of earlier representations referred to above and on making such representation, the 1st respondent, Commissioner of Collegiate Education shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereof. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. __________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 28.10.2009 kpr