THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Writ Petition No.24614 of 2011 Date: 13.09.2011 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 2 others .. Petitioners AND I. Rangaiah Naidu, S/o. Kumaraswamy, Junior Lecturer in Civics, Government Junior College, Sadasivapet, Medak District, and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Writ Petition No.24614 of 2011 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S. Rao) The post of Junior Lecturer in Government Colleges is included in Category-8, as per Rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Intermediate Education Service Rules, 1973. It is filled up either by direct recruitment or by transfer from School Assistants/Language Pandits or by recruitment by transfer from any other service. The first respondent (hereafter the applicant), who was a Post Graduate in Arts, was working as Senior Assistant. The Regional Joint Director (RJD), Intermediate Education, Warangal called for applications from teaching and non-teaching staff for appointment as Junior Lecturers in Government Colleges in Zone-VI. The applicant sent application. A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met on 17.12.1990. Thereafter, persons, who are juniors to the applicant, were appointed by proceedings dated 07.01.1991. He then made applications to the RJD and Commissioner of Intermediate Education in vain. Thereafter, he filed O.A.No.6902 of 1991 seeking a declaration that he is entitled for promotion as Junior Lecturer in Civics. Therein, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal passed interim orders on 15.07.1996 in M.A.No.1370 of 1996 directing the petitioners herein (hereafter the respondents) to consider the case of the applicant. The Commissioner, therefore, convened the review DPC, which met on 25.03.1997 and selected the applicant along with others for promotion as Junior Lecturer. The applicant submitted a representation on 03.06.2002 asking for notional seniority. The same was forwarded to the RJD by the Principal Government Junior College, Sadasivpet, Medak District on 07.06.2002. In consideration thereof, the RJD issued orders dated 13.07.2005 rejecting the request for notional seniority with effect from 17.12.1990. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed O.A.No.3516 of 2008 seeking invalidation of the order of the RJD and for consequential direction to assign notional seniority and promotion, as per the proceedings of the review DPC dated 25.03.1997. Though the matter was pending for more than two years, the respondents could not file counter. The Tribunal allowed O.A. on 13.09.2010 holding that the applicant is entitled for notional seniority on par with his juniors with effect from 07.01.1991 with all consequential benefits as per Rules. In this writ petition, the Government Pleader for Services-I submitted that the applicant did not send the application to the RJD for being considered to the post of Junior Lecturer as per Rule 3(D)(i) and therefore, the order of the Tribunal suffers from error. It is further contended that the original application was filed with the delay of 17 years seeking notional seniority and if seniority is disturbed after long time, it would be detrimental to the services of others. The submission that the applicant did not send his application to the RJD cannot be accepted. It is a disputed question of fact. The Tribunal as a final fact finding authority recorded a finding that the mistake lies on the part of the respondents and that when the DPC was convened, the case of the applicant was not considered. The Government also did not file counter before the Tribunal. This shows that the allegation of the applicant that he sent an application to the RJD and his name was not placed before DPC on 17.12.1990 remained uncontroverted. At the stage of judicial review of the order of the Tribunal, in our considered opinion, a disputed question of fact, which was not raised before the Tribunal, cannot be permitted to be raised in the writ petition. Further, admittedly, a review DPC was convened which recommended the name of the applicant. This would belie any submission that an application was not sent for being placed before the DPC in December 1990. The delay aspect also cannot be countenanced. The applicant has been pursuing his remedies. When his juniors were promoted on 17.01.1991 he filed O.A. 6902 of 1991 in which the interim order was passed, pursuant to which review DPC was convened. The delay, if any, is due to pendency of the original application filed in 1991 and the writ petition filed by the applicant and it cannot be attributed to him. In that view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal is an unexceptionable. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) 13.09.2011 Isn