THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.6473 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 24.11.2009 passed in O.A.No.12094 of 2009 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The third respondent herein filed the above said O.A. seeking to direct the second respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 04.09.2008, made by him for fixation of seniority taking into consideration G.O.Ms.No.152, dated 20.09.2003, memo dated 14.10.2003 and the brief note dated 21.11.2008. It is stated that the services of the third respondent were regularized by the second respondent with effect from 21.01.1978 and that the authorities also issued a memo dated 14.10.2003, to take action in respect of the regularisation of the employees as per G.O.Ms.No.152 and that the office also prepared a brief note dated 21.11.2008, stating that the third respondent is senior to one B. Nehru Babu, the petitioner herein, whose services were regularised on 17.04.1995 in Draughtsman- III category as per the said G.O. Since the representation dated 04.09.2008, with regard to fixing his place above the petitioner has not been considered, the third respondent filed the above said O.A. Through order dated 24.11.2009, the Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the first respondent dated 04.09.2008 for fixation of his seniority taking into consideration G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 20.09.2003 and also Memo dated 14.10.2003 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, AP., Hyderabad, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II and the learned counsel for the third respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that though the third respondent had referred to the seniority of the petitioner all through the O.A., he deliberately not made him as a party to the O.A. He further contended that the Tribunal ought not to have directed the second respondent to dispose of the representation of the third respondent by taking into consideration G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 20.09.2003 without arraying him as a party to the O.A. and without affording any opportunity to him. 5. G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 20.09.2003, was issued for regularisation of services of certain Draughtsmen/Tracers with LAE/LEE qualification in relaxation of Rule-6 of Special Rules of A.P.E.S.S. and the name of the third respondent was shown at Sl.No.4. In the O.A., the third respondent had specifically pointed out that there are irregularities in regularising the services of the petitioner with effect from 17.04.1995 in the cadre of Draughtsman -III. The third respondent stated that on his representation, office prepared a brief note dated 21.11.2008, in which it is mentioned that he is senior to the petitioner. 6. Though the third respondent is claiming seniority against the petitioner, and the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.4 in G.O.Ms.No.152, the Tribunal proceeded with the disposal of the O.A. without the petitioner being made as a party to the O.A. Further, the third respondent ought to have impleaded the petitioner as a party to the O.A. If the second respondent passes any order in favour of the third respondent pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, it will certainly have effect on the services of the petitioner. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter requires fresh consideration by the Tribunal. However, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal by way of appropriate application seeking his impleadment as a party to the O.A and on such filing, the Tribunal shall dispose of the same. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order impugned and giving liberty to the petitioner as indicated above. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for disposal of O.A. afresh in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. No costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:04.07.2011 sj