IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.2872 of 2008 Between: A. Rama Krishna S/o. Mutyalu Charge), Public Health Sub Division, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health & Municipal Engineering Department, A.C. Guards, Kashana, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (E1) Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus to set aside the orders in O.A. 6965/07, dated 30-1-2008 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal as illegal and unjust in the eye of Law and consequentially direct the respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer for the vacancies pertaining to the panel years of 2004-05, 2005-06 for which vacancies DPC was constituted on 3-9-2007 and deferred the case for the panel year of 2007-08 and not for vacancies for the panel year of 2004-05, 2005- 06 and without reference to the charge memo issued in G.O.Rt.No.1549, M.A., dated 15-11-05 communicated on 26/27-3- 2007 as well as that the similarly placed employees were promoted as Deputy Executive Engineers dated 21-9-2007, by extending the benefit of the judgments reported in 1999, (5) SCC, page 762 and W.P. No.4505/03, dated 14-8-2003 judgment and pass such other orders or order. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. K.R.Srinivas Counsel for the Respondents : G.P. for Municipal Admn. And Urban Development. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.2872 of 2008 ORAL ORDER : (per the HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the interlocutory order, dated 30.01.2008, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), while admitting O.A.No.6965 of 2007, advising the petitioner to give a representation ventilating his grievance and directed the competent authority to pass orders on such representation within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed the above O.A., seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not considering his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (PH) for the panel years of 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 for which the Departmental Promotion Committee (“DPC”) was constituted in the last week of September, 2007, and deferred the case of the petitioner on the ground that charge Memo, dated 15.11.2005, was communicated in the year 2007 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Deputy Executive Engineer (PH) for the panel year of 2004- 2005 and 2005-2006 without reference to the charge Memo, issued in G.O.Rt.No.1549, M.A., dated 15.11.2005, communicated on 26/27.03.2007, as well as taking into consideration the fact that similarly placed employees were promoted. 4. When the matter came up for admission, the Tribunal, while admitting the O.A., by order, dated 30.01.2008, passed the above interim order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the DPC was to be conducted for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer for the panel years 2004-2006. But, due to various reasons, the DPC could not be conducted, for the above panel years and by the time the DPC for the above panel years was sought to be conducted, some disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and others and on that ground the name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (PH). Therefore, he contended that since the DPC was not conducted for three consecutive years and all through the petitioner was having clean record, merely because some disciplinary proceedings have been initiated just before the commencement of the DPC for the above panel years, the case of the petitioner cannot be rejected for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (PH). 6. In fact, while admitting the O.A., the Tribunal passed the impugned order, which reads as under: “Additional counter affidavit is filed. Perused. Heard. Admit. The applicant can give a representation ventilating his grievance and the competent authority shall pass orders on such representation within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.” 7. From the above, it appears that the Tribunal did not go into the merits of the case, at all. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the Tribunal were neither on record, nor were considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned interlocutory order. 8. It is settled law that the High court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the discretionary orders of the Tribunal, which were passed, either rejecting or granting the interim orders, unless such orders are totally unjustifiable, unconstitutional and irreversible, amounting to partially allowing the O.A. 9. In the instant case, ex facie, we do not find any apparent and unjustifiable reason in the impugned interlocutory order. 10. For the foregoing, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned interlocutory order, passed by the Tribunal, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition shall not be understood as the one passed basing on the merits of the case. _________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD 21ST FEBRUARY 2008. MSR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health & Municipal Engineering Department, A.C. Guards, Kashana, Hyderabad. 2 The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (E1) Department, Government of A.P., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3. 2CCs to Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. 2CD copies THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.2872 of 2008 (Order of the Division Bench delivered by the Hob’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.VARMA) 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 (MSR)