THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION NO.19614 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The petitioner herein, who was working as Joint Director, Directorate of Economics & Statistics Department, Hyderabad, filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the orders dismissing the application filed by her under Section 19 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, in O.A.No.513 of 2003 dated 23.01.2008 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, wherein she assailed the correctness of the action of the authorities concerned in denying the conformity of Indian Administrative Services {“I.A.S.” for short} for her, in spite of the fact that she became eligible much earlier. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner herein belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community (Lambadi). Initially, she was appointed as Assistant Director in 1987 in Bureau of Economics and Statistics, Government of A.P., being selected by A.P. Public Service Commission. She was promoted as Deputy Director in the year 1993 and Joint Director in the year 1998. She claims that she has received many awards like ‘International Women Excellence Award’ in 1994, ‘Mahila Siromani Award’ and many appreciation letters from the Government of A.P., and ‘Millennium Mahila Siromani Rastra Ratna Award. Later, she was short listed for conformity of I.A.S., as per the letter dated 17.12.2002. However, according to her, having regard to certain misunderstandings with higher officials, certain proceedings were initiated and she was placed under suspension on the allegation that she has committed financial irregularity in purchases beyond budgetary provisions. The said suspension orders were challenged before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad {“the Tribunal” for brevity}, in O.A.No.3017 of 2003. However, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on 07.05.2004 on merits. But the suspension order was immediately revoked by the Government on 13.10.2004 itself. Thereafter, in spite of usual sealed cover method, she was not allowed for interview. Again the petitioner has filed the present O.A. claiming her case to be considered and challenging the action of denial. However, the Tribunal, without going into the merits of the case and merely relying upon the dismissal order of O.A.No.3017 of 2003, dismissed the same on 23.01.2008. Hence, the Writ Petition. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents pointed out that the petitioner’s case cannot be considered. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the material available on record, especially as pointed out during the course of arguments, which has not been seriously disputed on behalf of the respondent, even the punishment, the minor penalty of censure imposed as per G.O.R.Ts.No.889 dated 09.12.2009 and Government memo dated 17.03.2010 and later withdrawing the minor penalty of censure imposed in G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 31.12.2008 and later, even the entire period of suspension was also regularized as duty by G.O.Rt.No.492 dated 15.06.2010, the proceedings in T.E.C.No.1 of 2007 on the file of II Number Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings at Hyderabad, were also withdrawn in G.O.Rt.No.567 dated 13.07.2010. Therefore, according to the petitioner, absolutely, there is nothing against her, neither a proceeding nor any punishment much less any disqualification to come against consideration of her case. It is also pointed out that it was held by the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 01.02.2010, which was confirmed by the Apex Court i n Ch.Praveen Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, that the petitioner is eligible for consideration to the promotion post of I.A.S. conferment taking into account, the initial date of notification. Even in regard to the upper age limit of 54 years fixed for conferment of I.A.S. in clause 5 (3) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955, it was held as illegal and therefore, quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench of Bangalore, on 30.11.2009. In view of the same, there being nothing against the petitioner, it is necessary that her case requires to be considered afresh though in terms of the earlier notification itself, as she is fully qualified and becomes entitled. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioner in proper perspective for conformity to the post of I.A.S. on par with the similarly placed by the notification issued earlier and pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law. Consequently, the order dated 23.01.2008 in O.A.No.513 of 2003 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, shall stand set aside. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 8th September 2010 Note: CC by one week B/O RRB