IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No. 23910 OF 2009 Between: G.Sanjeeva Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Food & Civil Supplies Convener Affairs Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMAD) The third respondent herein, who is working as Inspector of Legal Metrology, filed OA No. 3817 of 2005 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, assailing the action of the respondents in convening the DPC by including the Inspectors of Legal Metrology promoted illegally from the cadre of Senior Assistants of the Head Office, who are not eligible as per the Presidential Order and contrary to the judgment in OA No. 3045 of 2003 and to consequently direct the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of District Inspector of Weights & Measures after revising the seniority in accordance with the Rules, precedents and instructions of the Government. The third respondent herein was recruited as Inspector of Legal Metrology in 1994 and got the relaxation on par with others. It is his case that there was no direct recruitment from 1986 to 1992 but the Department has promoted certain employees of the Head Office and Zonal Office and fixed their seniority above him very much contrary to Rue 1 of the A.P. Inspectors of Weights & Measures Service Rules, which provide for the mode of appointment by (i) direct recruitment (2) by promotion of maistries including senior maistries and Manual Assistants with degree qualifications and (3) by recruitment by transfer of Senior Assistants of Weights & Measures Department in A.P. Ministerial Service or where no such candidates are available by transfer from any other services. While so, the second respondent herein has issued seniority list dated 6.7.1999, which was assailed in OA No. 2566 of 2003. It is further stated that the direct recruit Inspectors questioned the Rule providing promotion channel to the Senior Assistants being contrary to the Presidential Order, which is subject matter of OA No. 4671 and 4691 of 2003, which were allowed. It is the specific case of the third respondent herein that the said seniority list cannot be acted upon for the purpose of making promotions, as seniority list includes ineligible candidates. Before the Tribunal, it is case of the respondents 4 and 5 herein that the third respondent ought to have exhausted the remedy of appeal under Rule 26 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and without availing the same, they are not entitled to any relief in the O.A. The Tribunal by the order impugned has observed that the promotions and seniority list are illegal and contrary to the Rules. It is further observed that the authorities should consider the case of the applicants in OA No. 3122 of 2003 for appointment by transfer to the post of District Inspector of Legal Metrology in terms of the Special Rules and the said directions were issued prior to 7.11.2001, on which date the Apex Court pronounced the judgment in V.Jagannadha Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2002 SC 77) and, as such, the respondents 4 and 5 cannot be promoted as Inspector of Legal Metrology on the ground that they were appointed by transfer as Inspector of Legal Metrology in terms of the directions given in OA No. 6119 of 2000. Ultimately, the Tribunal while observing that since the orders were issued in violation of Rule 3 of the A.P.Weights and Measures Service Rules, has directed the official respondents to review the seniority list and the promotions made from among the Senior Assistants and Superintendents of the Head Office and to pass appropriate orders according to the said judgment. Aggrieved by the said judgment in the above O.A. No. 3817 of 2005, one Mr. G.Sanjeeva Reddy, who was promoted as District Inspector, Legal Metrology, from the post of Inspector of Legal Metrology by transfer from the post of Senior Assistant, has filed the above writ petition, after seeking leave, inter alia contending that the judgment passed by the Tribunal has a bearing on his seniority and promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that settled things cannot be unsettled after lapse of several years and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have restricted the scope of the order to the parties to the O.A. instead of giving general direction. He further contends that the question of legality or initial appointment cannot be reopened at the instance of persons who are appointed subsequently and that too when the promotions are affected. He submits that since the petitioner was not made a party to the O.A. he could not bring the factual and legal position to the notice of the Tribunal and since the order affects his seniority and promotions which have crystallized, he prays to allow the writ petition. Per contra, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.3 contends that the Tribunal has rightly allowed OA No. 3122 of 2003 and 3045 of 2003 setting aside Rule 3 of the A.P. Weights & Measures Service Rules, which provides for recruitment by transfer and, therefore, as a necessary corollary, the seniority list and the promotions made from among the Senior Assistant and Superintendents of the Head office shall have to be reviewed. He further submits that the petitioner has a right to seek review of the order impugned, before the Central Administrative Tribunal and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Though several contentions are sought to be raised by the counsel on either side, we do not propose to delve on the same for the simple reason that the writ petition is filed without resorting to Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which provides for review by the Tribunal. We are fortified in our view by a judgment of the Apex Court in Rajeev Kumar and Another Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others ([1]) wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that the Division Bench erred in allowing the impleadment application and further allowing them to make submissions at time of hearing of writ petition, when admittedly they were not parties before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is further observed that apart from the same, the Tribunal has also jurisdiction to review under Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and, therefore, it could not be said that appellants were without any remedy. As such, the High Court cannot be treated as a court of first instance. Having given our anxious consideration, we do not see any illegality in the order impugned warranting interference by this court. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed ________________ Justice K.G.Shankar June 15, 2011 MAS [1] (2010) 4 SCC 554