IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 9734 of 2008 Between: Sri P. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Penchala Reddy, Mandal Revenue Officer, Ponnalur, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Acquisition, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Nellore. 4 K. Govardhana, Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore. .....RESPONDENTS 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, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to call for the records pertaining to In O.A.No. 2740 of 2007 & V.M.A. 698 of 2007 dt. 16-5- 2007, 18-6-2007 and 22-1-2008 on the file of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, and declare the same as being barred by limitation as stipulated under Section 21 of A.P.A.T. Act, 1985 and consequently direct the respondents to implement the Government orders pertaining to the promotion of Petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Collector. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & ASSOCIATES Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for Respondent No.4: MR. C. SRINIVASA BABA The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per GM, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to call for the records pertaining to O.A.No.2740 of 2007 and V.M.A.No.698 of 2007 and to declare the orders dated 16.05.2007, 18.06.2007 and 22.01.2008 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in the said O.A., as illegal, arbitrary and barred by limitation as stipulated under Section 21 of the A.P.A.T Act, 1985 and consequently to direct the respondents to implement the Government Orders pertaining to the promotion of the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Collector. The petitioner and the 4th respondent herein were appointed as Lower Division Clerks in the Revenue Department and their services were regularized with effect from 21.04.1976 vide proceedings dated 09.08.1977 wherein the petitioner’s name was at Sl.No.38 and the 4th respondent’s name was placed at Sl.No.39. The petitioner states that though he was fully qualified and eligible, the official respondents have not sent him for Revenue Inspectors Training on par with his juniors. In pursuance of the representation made by him, the Government after careful examination of all the issues involved, issued G.O.Rt.No.1923, dated 27.12.2000, through which, the Government has provisionally decided to relax the Rule 23(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules and General Rules 33(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules (for short ‘the Rules’) in his favour by giving notional promotion with effect from18.06.1982 on par with his immediate junior in Lower Division Cadre in terms of Rule 24 of the Rules and in that regard, the District Collector, Nellore was requested to issue notices to all the affected persons for filing objections, if any. In pursuance of the objections submitted by the affected parties, the Government confirmed the above said provisional order vide G.O.Rt.No.2118, dated 09.12.2002 and directed the third respondent to take appropriate steps for revising the seniority list. On a clarification sought by the third respondent, the Government issued memo dated 21.04.2004 directing him to include the name of the petitioner for the panel of the year 1982 above the name of the 4th respondent, who is immediate junior to him in the Lower Division Cadre. Pursuant to the said orders, the third respondent issued proceedings dated 26.04.2007 including the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of Senior Assistants for the year 1982 above the name of the 4th respondent. Challenging the orders passed by the Government dated 27.12.2000, 09.12.2002 and 21.04.2004, the 4th respondent filed O.A.No.2740 of 2007 and obtained interim suspension on 16.05.2007 and the same was extended on 18.06.2007 until further orders. Thereafter, the petitioner filed VMA No.689 of 2007 seeking to vacate the said order. The Tribunal disposed of the said VMA on 22.01.2008 wherein it stated in paragraph 4 that “these orders are in addition to the interim orders already issued on 16.05.2007”. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. While admitting the present writ petition on 30.04.2008, this Court granted interim suspension of paragraph 4 of the order dated 22.01.2008 passed by the Tribunal in V.M.A.No.698 of 2007 in O.A.No.2740 of 2007 2008. The 3rd respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that in pursuance of the orders passed by the Government and after seeking certain clarifications, the revised orders dated 26.04.2007 have been issued. The 4th respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that he acquired eligibility criteria much earlier than the petitioner and is eligible for promotion as on the date of occurrence of vacancy and that he was promoted as Senior Assistant on 02.05.1980 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 02.05.1980. As the petitioner was not eligible as on the date of occurrence of vacancy in Senior Assistant Category, he was not promoted. He further stated that in view of the interim suspension granted by this Court on 30.04.2008, the third respondent issued proceedings, pushing down his seniority by upholding the impugned orders in the O.A. and further pushing him down as Deputy Tahsildar for the year 1992-93. The petitioner filed reply affidavit denying the averments made by the respondents in their respective counters. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have suspended the Governments orders dated 27.12.2000, 09.12.2002 and 21.04.2004 without adjudicating the legality or otherwise of the same. She contended that the 4th respondent filed the said O.A. in the year 2007 against the orders of the years 2000 and 2002 and therefore, it is barred by limitation. She further contended that the petitioner is going to be retired from service by the end of this month. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the third respondent contended that the writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the Tribunal has passed order in favour of the petitioner in VMA No.698 of 2007 on 22.01.2008. The relevant portion of the order dated 22.01.2008 in VMA No.698 of 2007 is as under; “It is represented that without reference to the orders impugned, giving notional seniority to the unofficial respondent herein, the unofficial respondent is coming within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Revenue Divisional Officer/Deputy Collector. If that is so, the respondents are at liberty to issue necessary orders of promotion to the unofficial respondent, pending further orders in this O.A. VMA No.698 of 2007 is accordingly disposed of”. When the matter came up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in another O.A.No.1509 of 2008 filed by the direct recruit Deputy Tahsildars, the Tribunal directed the respondents not to issue any posting orders with respect to promotions to the post of Deputy Collectors. This order was passed on 21.02.2008 i.e, subsequent to the order passed in VMA No.698 of 2007 dated 22.01.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order of the Tribunal passed in VMA No.698 of 2007 dated 22.01.2008 is not being implemented and he was not promoted to the cadre of Revenue Divisional Officer/Deputy Collector because of the stay granted by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1509 of 2008 dated 21.02.2008. We have gone through the material on record. Inasmuch as O.A.No.2740 of 2007 is pending before the Tribunal, we are not inclined to adjudicate the matter on merits. Needless to state that until and unless the order dated 21.02.2008 in O.A.No.1509 of 2008 is modified or vacated by the Tribunal, it may not be possible to issue orders of promotion to the petitioner. The order, dated 16.05.2007, by which the Government orders passed in various G.Os are stayed, does not disclose valid reasons for granting order of stay. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated the contentions raised by the parties and recorded reasons therefor. In the circumstances, we allow the writ petition by setting aside the order, dated 16.05.2007 and consequential extension of interim order dated 18.06.2007. Since the petitioner is going to be retired by the end of this month, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of O.A.No.2740 of 2007 in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED , J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:12.03.2009 Note: Issue CC by two days. Issue copy to the Registrar, APAT, Hyderabad through messenger forthwith. (Bo) sj