THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 11321 OF 2009 Date of Disposal: 24.9.2009 Between: K. Ramulu …Petitioner And B. Hukya and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 11321 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) 1. The petitioner is a third party to OA No. 7338 of 2007 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) and he is aggrieved of the order of the Tribunal dated 7.11.2008 passed therein, as, according to him, his seniority and promotion is likely to be affected by the said order. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition challenging the said order of the Tribunal by obtaining leave from this Court. Leave to file the writ petition was granted to the petitioner on 5.6.2009 in WPMP No. 12349 of 2009 and thereafter the writ petition was admitted on 9.6.2009 and the impugned order was suspended. 2. The 1st respondent as well as official respondents 2 to 4 have filed counter-affidavits together with applications seeking vacation of the above said interim order. We have heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents 2 to 4 who have made submissions on the main writ petition itself and as such by this order the main writ petition itself is being disposed of by consent of the parties. 3 The dispute appears to be relating to seniority in the category of Agricultural Officers. While the writ petitioner herein belongs to Zone-VI, the 1st respondent herein belongs to Zone-II. The 1st respondent claims that his probation in the category of Agricultural Officer was declared on 26.9.1992 and he was later promoted as Assistant Director of Agriculture on 30.12.2005. He claims that the writ petitioner herein, whose probation was declared and whose date of seniority in the category of Agricultural Officer was fixed as 13.7.1996, was promoted as Assistant Director of Agriculture on 30.12.2004, ahead of 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent claims that he had, therefore, made a representation on 11.10.2007 seeking restoration of his seniority vis-à-vis the writ petitioner and complaining of inaction on the part of the official respondents, he approached the Tribunal by filing an OA which has been disposed of by the Tribunal in view of the affirmation of the official respondents in the counter- affidavit that the name of 1st respondent would be taken into consideration as per the revised provisional seniority list and the consequential benefits, if any, will be given. Thus the Tribunal disposed of the OA directing the official respondents to consider the seniority of 1st respondent herein as per the declaration of his probation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of its order. 4. In the present writ petition the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has made a strong grievance that the OA was filed by the 1st respondent without making him as party, though in the body of the OA, reference to the 1st respondent and his service particulars has been mentioned at more than one place and the seniority over and above the writ petitioner was claimed by the 1st respondent in the said OA. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that without making the writ petitioner as party to the OA, the directions issued by the Tribunal in favour of the 1st respondent amounts to granting the relief as to date from which the 1st respondent is entitled to seniority and based on the said order of the Tribunal, the official respondents have already issued a notice proposing to revise the seniority vide memo bearing No. A1 (2) 1487/07, dated 13.4.2009. The learned counsel also submits that the writ petitioner has filed detailed objections to the said proposed seniority list and in view of the orders of the Tribunal impugned herein, the official respondents appeared to think and are proceeding on the assumption that objections filed by the writ petitioner were not entertainable. He, therefore, submits that the order in the OA deserves to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the contrary, submits that the only relief sought for in the OA is with regard to the inaction of official respondents in not considering the representation of 1st respondent and the direction of the Tribunal, therefore, is only to direct the official respondents to consider the representation of the 1st respondent so as to rectify the errors in the seniority list. The learned counsel has pointed out certain defects in the seniority list by placing the said list before this Court. The learned counsel also submits that the writ petitioner has been wrongly shown above the 1st respondent and has been granted promotion ahead of the 1st respondent, which is necessary to be rectified by the official respondents and for that purpose he has already filed a representation. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and examined the pleadings of the parties with reference to the documents and the impugned order of the Tribunal. It is no doubt true that the OA filed by the 1st respondent refers to the writ petitioner and his service particulars at several places, but the writ petitioner was not impleaded as a party to the said OA, presumably as the 1st respondent was only seeking a relief that his representation dated 11.10.2007 may be directed to be considered and the Tribunal has also felt that since that is the only relief sought for, it has disposed of the OA with the direction as stated above. However, the substance of the OA filed by the 1st respondent shows that he was seeking the relief of restoration of his seniority over and above the writ petitioner, in which case the writ petitioner was at least a proper party, if not a necessary party. However, in our view, no purpose would be served by remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in view of the fact that the official respondents herein have already issued a notice to the writ petitioner calling upon him to file his objections, if any, with respect to provisional seniority list. The writ petitioner also states that he has filed his objections thereto. Keeping in view the controversy and the disputes primarily centering around the fixation of seniority so far as the writ petitioner and the 1st respondent are concerned, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by modifying the impugned order with the following directions, 1) The notice calling for objections issued by the official respondents 2 to 4 bearing No. A1 (2) 1487/07, dated 13.4.2009 referred to above, which had fixed 15 days for receipt of objections, shall stand modified and the writ petitioner is granted a further period of 15 days to file detailed objections to the said provisional seniority list, if he so chooses; 2) On such objections being received, the 2nd respondent shall give an opportunity of hearing to the 1st respondent as well as the writ petitioner and shall consider the objections on their own merits without being influenced by any observations of the Tribunal or this Court under this order and pass appropriate orders with regard thereto in accordance with law; 3) If the official respondents intend to call for objections from other employees in the provisional seniority list and the other employees would like to file any objections, it is open for the 2nd respondent to consider those objections as well and decide the provisional seniority list in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations of the Tribunal or this Court under this order; 4) The Tribunal has granted eight weeks for completing the above exercise. We would also expect that the 2nd respondent would complete the said exercise within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH J. Dt. 24.9.2009 KR _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR J.