HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NOs.9980, 10017 AND 10021 OF 2009 Dt.27.11.2009 W.P.NO.9980 of 2009 Between: A.Ashok .. Petitioner And M.Ramakrishna Rao and others .. Respondents W.P.NO.10017 of 2009 Between: L.Prabhakar .. Petitioner And M.Ramakrishna Rao and others .. Respondents W.P.NO.10021of 2009 Between: K.Raghunandhan Rao and another .. Petitioners And The Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NOs.9980, 10017 AND 10021 OF 2009 ORDER: (per Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) These three writ petitions arise out of common O.A.No.5569 of 2008 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Party respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the said O.A. have questioned the order of the Tribunal in these three separate writ petitions aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 26.3.2009 whereby the said O.A. was allowed directing the official respondent to conduct review DPC. Respondents 2 and 5 in the O.A. have filed W.P.No.10021 of 2009, the 3rd respondent in the O.A. filed W.P.No.10017 of 2009 and the 4th respondent in the O.A. filed W.P.No.9980 of 2009. Since the question involved is common in these three writ petitions, they are being heard and disposed by this common order. In the said O.A. promotion of respondents 2 to 5 to the post Assistant Commissioners of Endowments was challenged on the ground that it is violative of Section 29(5) (b) of the Endowments Act and Rule 7 of the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said Act and Rules provide that for the purpose of transfer or promotion to the category of Assistant Commissioner from the feeder category of Superintendent in the Endowments Department and the Executive Officer Grade-I. The minimum service of three years is required in the feeder category. The contention of the applicant in the O.A. is that he is fully qualified, but his case has been ignored and respondents 2 to 5 were promoted. The said promotion was defended by the Commissioner of Endowments before the Tribunal on the basis of ad-hoc rules in G.O.Ms.No.627, G.A. (Ser.A) Department, dated 21.12.1983, which provides that not withstanding anything contained in the relevant special rules appointment by promotion has to be made by taking into consideration the minimum ordinary period of five years of service whenever prescribed in the rules as the requirement of minimum service in the feeder category, but in any case it shall not be less than two years in the feeder category. The promotion of respondents 2 to 5 was, however, not approved by the Tribunal firstly on the ground that the said ad-hoc rules were made prior to the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No.30 of 1987) (for short, the ‘Act’) and under Section 4(5) thereof qualifications for appointment and transfer to the post of Assistant Commissioner are prescribed by the Act. Secondly, the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India specifically provide the minimum service required under Rule 7 thereto is three years. The Tribunal therefore came to the conclusion that the prior ad-hoc rules cannot be enforced in view of the latter statutory enactment of Act 30 of 1987 and the Service Rules referred to above. Consequently, the Tribunal found that when the officials fulfilling the requisite minimum eligibility of three years are available, there is no justification to ignore them and to consider the case of the party respondents 2 to 5 before it. The Tribunal therefore allowed the O.A. by setting aside the orders of promotion with respect to the said party respondents 2 to 5, directing the Commissioner of Endowments to consider the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments in accordance with the Act and Special Rules referred to above. As mentioned above, the said party respondents 2 to 5 have filed the present writ petitions and this Court while admitting the writ petitions on 13.5.2009 granted interim suspension of the order of the Tribunal. Now, applications have been filed by the applicant in the O.A. seeking to vacate the said order of this Court dated 13.5.2009 in each of these writ petitions. We have heard all the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader has filed applications in W.P.M.P.No.29229 of 2009 in W.P.No.10017 of 2009 and W.P.M.P. No.29230 of 2009 in W.P.No.9980 of 2009 seeking permission of this Court to conduct review D.P.C. for the panel years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 to enable them to make promotions to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the said application that as per the Act and the statutory service rules in G.O.Ms.No.245, dated 8.5.2002, the minimum requirement of eligibility of service in the feeder category is three years. It is also stated that the D.P.C has, however, followed the ad-hoc rules and issued promotion orders. But, as per the affidavits now filed in support of the applications of the State, it is categorically stated in paras 9 and 12 as follows: “The Hon’ble Tribunal in its order dt.26.03.2009 in O.A.No.5569/2008 held that the ad-hoc rule made in G.O.Ms.No.627, GAD, dt.21.12.1983, contravenes the Sec.4(5) of the Act 30/87 and the said ad-hoc rule cannot be made applicable to the post of Assistant Commissioner and set aside the appointment orders issued by the Commissioner of Endowments in proceedings No.E1/14935/2007, dt.30.05.2007 for all 35 candidates including the candidates who have completed 3 years of service. It is respectfully submitted that, it is proposed to review the panels for the panel years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 and reselect the eligible candidates by following Rule 7 of A.P.C. & H.R.I and Endowments Service Rules, 2002 and also Note 3 of Rule 3. It is submitted that there are “26” number of vacancies. I submit that in view of the interim orders of the Hon’ble High Court, the vacancies cannot be filled. This is resulting in administrative inconvenience.” It is therefore evident that the Tribunal had rightly declared that the ad-hoc rules cannot be followed for the purpose of effecting promotions and the Department had to follow the Act and the statutory rules under G.O.Ms.No.245, dated 8.5.2002. Since the said position is accepted by the State in the present applications seeking to conduct review D.P.C., we are of the view that interests of justice would be served, if we dispose of the writ petitions directing the official respondent to conduct review D.P.C as prayed by following Section 4(5) of Act 30 of 1987 as well as the statutory rules under G.O.Ms.No.245, Revenue (Endts.I) Department, dated 8.5.2002, which are in force. All the writ petitioners admittedly are already promoted. Though their promotions were set aside by the Tribunal in the order impugned, this Court while admitting the writ petitions had suspended the order of the Tribunal. In view of the same, all the writ petitioners are continuing in the promoted posts. However, the case of the applicant before the Tribunal as well as writ petitioners and all other eligible officers shall be considered by the review D.P.C. and appropriate decision with regard to their promotions shall be taken within a period of six weeks from today. In the meanwhile, the writ petitioners, who are continuing in the promoted posts, shall not be disturbed and their continuance in the promoted posts shall be subject to the decision of the review D.P.C. In other words, status quo existing as on today shall continue till the decisions of the review D.P.C are implemented. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ___________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 27.11.2009 kpr