THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 14734 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Heard Sri.P.V.Krishnaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned G.P. for Services-II for the oﬃcial respondents and Sri.J.R.Manohar, learned Counsel for the 11 th respondent who has been impleaded to the writ petition by the order dt. 29.11.2011of this Court, in W.P.M.P.No. 27108 of 2011. Though the writ petition was admitted on 7.6.2011 and notices served on the unoﬃcial respondents, there is no response or representation on their behalf. The writ petition is fundamentally misconceived. The petitioner is a Prohibition & Excise Sub-inspector working at Husnabad under the administrative control of the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Karimnagar in Zone-V. The relief sought is extracted: For the reasons disclosed in the accompanying aﬃdavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon’ble Tribunal dt. 17.3.2010 in O.A.No. 1111 of 2010 and batch and declare the same as erroneous and quash the am and consequently set aside the Proceedings Rc.765/2010/P & E/A1 dt. 8.3.2011 including the Proceedings Rc.765/2010/P & E/A1dt. 21.3.2011 issued by the 6th respondent and pass such other order or orders as it deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner was appointed as Excise Sub-inspector in October, 2007 in Zone-V. The post of Prohibition & Excise Inspector is the next higher post to the Prohibition & Excise Sub-inspector and a Zonal level post. According to the petitioner for Zone-V the provisional seniority list of Excise Sub-inspectors was prepared on 16.11.2010, purportedly in accordance with the law mandated by Rule 33 (b) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (short ‘the 1996 Rules’) i.e in accordance with the order of preference recommended by the A.P. Public Service Commission, the Selection Authority which selected the petitioner for direct recruitment as Excise Sub-inspector. According to the equivocal assertion of the petitioner, the APPSC had arranged the selected candidates in an order of preference inter se to reﬂect the roster mandated under Rule 22 of the 1996 Rules. Some of the Excise Sub-inspectors who were also directly recruited like the petitioner but had obtained more marks at the recruitment examination are alleged to have lodged objections to the provisional seniority list dt. 16.11.2010 on 9.12.2010 contending that the seniority should be arranged in accordance with the marks ranking obtained at the recruitment. According to the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Karimnagar on 20.12.2010 sought clariﬁcation from the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise on the objections lodged on 9.12.2010. On 1.3.2011, the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise issued a clariﬁcation to the eﬀect that in view of the Judgement of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal dt. 17.3.2010 in O.A.No. 1111 of 2010 and batch, the merit ranking assigned by the Public Service Commission for Prohibition & Excise Sub- inspectors must be followed while arranging inter se seniority list. The petitioner is aggrieved that as a consequence of the Commissioner’s allegedly unauthorised clariﬁcation dt. 1.3.2011, the Deputy Commissioner concerned issued a revised provisional seniority list on 8.3.2011 and on that basis issued the final seniority list dt. 21.3.2011. Sri.P.V.Krishnaiah would contend that as the genesis of the petitioner’s predicament is the Judgement of the Tribunal dt. 17.3.2010 in O.A.No. 1111 of 2010 and batch, she is constrained to assail the Judgement, notwithstanding the fact that the Judgement was rendered in the context of consideration of the validity of a seniority list of Prohibition & Excise Inspectors (not Excise Sub-inspectors) in Zone-II, which is a wholly independent unit and has no nexus with Zone-V where the petitioner is working in the lower category of Excise Sub-inspector. The provisions of the A.P. Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadre and Regulation) Order, 1975 (Presidential Order) requires each local area (a zone in this case) to be a separate unit for purposes of appointment and seniority. The 11th respondent is also not a party to the O.A. No. 1111 of 2010 and batch. By the Judgement dt. 17.3.2010, the Tribunal allowed the applications and invalidated the seniority list of Prohibition & Excise Inspectors dt. 16.8.2007 (impugned therein). However, the 11th respondent is a Prohibition & Excise Sub-inspector in Zone-V who is aﬀected by the composite relief sought by the petitioner namely a challenge to the ﬁnal seniority list dt. 21.3.2011 of Excise Sub-inspectors prepared for Zone-V. The 11th respondent is one of the objectors to the provisional seniority list dt. 16.11.2010 and inter alia his objections were considered and the Commissioner’s clariﬁcation dt. 1.3.2011 was issued which resulted in issuance of the final seniority list dt. 16.11.2010. This is the nexus of the 11th respondent with this lis. By a common Judgement dt. 17.3.2010, the Tribunal allowed four applications O.A.Nos. 1159 of 2009, 1111 of 2010, 1133 of 2009 and 1173 of 2009. All the applicants in this batch of applications were Prohibition & Excise Inspectors belonging to Zone-II. They questioned the ﬁnal seniority list of Prohibition & Excise Inspectors issued on 16.8.2007. On the basis of such ﬁnal seniority list, an integrated seniority list of Prohibition & Excise Inspectors was issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise on 29.9.2009, for consideration for promotion to the next higher category of Assistant Excise Superintendents (a Multi Zonal post). In preparing the ﬁnal seniority list dt. 16.8.2007, the Unit Oﬃcer for the category of Excise Inspectors was Zonal authority appears to have followed the order of preference recommended by the Public Service Commission while forwarding the results of the direct recruitment (the dispute was between the directly recruited Prohibition & Excise Inspectors). The applicants were aggrieved that in preparing the ﬁnal seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Inspectors dt. 16.8.2007, candidates ranked higher in the order of merit were however pushed down in seniority positions on account of the seniority list being prepared to reflect the 100 point roster mandated under Rule 22 of the 1996 Rules. In the debate before the Tribunal reliance was placed on Rule 33 (b) of the 1996 Rules. However, the Tribunal purporting to follow the Judgement of the Supreme Court in Raj Karan Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (Civil Appeal No. 4455 of 2008) concluded that the ratio discidendi mandated that where a selection is involved and names are arranged according to merit, a candidate higher in merit cannot be lowered in seniority. On a careful perusal of the Judgement of the Tribunal and antecedent facts, it does not appear that the recommendations of the Public Service Commission (where the applicants and the unoﬃcial respondents in the batch of O.As. were recruited and recommended for appointment and the order of preference if any drawn up by the APPSC; or the order(s) of appointment of the contesting parties on their appointment to the post of Prohibition & Excise Inspector )was perused by the Tribunal to ascertain whether the seniority position is governed by Rule 33 (b) and if so to what extent. Be that as it may. Clearly, the adjudication by the Tribunal was regarding the inter se seniority positions of the Prohibition & Excise Inspectors (Zonal level post), pertaining to Zone-II whereas the petitioner and the 11th respondent are the Excise Sub-inspectors working in a lower category, in Zone-V. As is apparent from the context and structure of the pleadings of by petitioner, the grievance appears to be that in preparing of the ﬁnal seniority list of Excise Sub-inspectors dt. 21.3.2011 for Zone-V, the decision of the Tribunal dt. 17.3.2010 in O.A.No. 1159 of 2009 and batch had inﬂuenced the drawing up of inter se seniority positions. It is with this grievance that the petitioner ﬁled this writ petition (after obtaining the leave of this Court to litigate since she was not a party to O.A.No. 11511 of 2010 and batch). Sri.P.V.Krishnaiah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner with his usual tenacity contends that the petitioner should not be subjected to the trauma of working out her litigative strategies commencing from the Tribunal and that in view of the fact that the Judgement dt. 17.3.2010 in O.A.No. 1111 of 2010 and batch has been challenged by the respondents in the O.As in other writ petitions which are pending adjudication before this Court, the grievance of the petitioner must also be considered by this Court as the Judgement of the Tribunal has an impact on the seniority determination in Zone-V as well. Justiﬁcation for approaching this Court directly in the matrix of facts adverted to above, is placed on the Judgement of the Supreme Court in Gopabandhu Biswal vs. Krishna Chnadra Mohanty[1]. The relevant facts in the decision relied on by the Counsel for the petitioner are that the appellant was in military service prior to November 1972 and after his release therefrom, he applied for appointment as Assistant Commandant in the Orissa Military Police, pursuant to an advertisement published by the Orissa Public Service Commission inviting applications from Ex- Military Oﬃcers. The appellant qualiﬁed in the departmental examinations and was conﬁrmed as Assistant Commandant with eﬀect from 15.11.1975. Claiming that though he was eligible for consideration for promotion to the Indian Police Service (IPS), he was not so considered since according to the respondents only DSPs working in Orissa Police Force were eligible for being considered to IPS, he approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (to which his petition was transferred after coming into force of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985), held that the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Assistant Commandant of Orissa Military Police constituted a single cadre as on 5.11.1980; allowed the application of the appellant by an order dt. 24.12.1991; directed that his case be considered for promotion with eﬀect from 1.1.1977 and granted other incidental reliefs. 25 other respondents who had superseded the appellant for promotion to the IPS were also impleaded before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Orissa and two other unoﬃcial respondents ﬁled SLP challenging the decision of the Tribunal dt. 24.12.1991. While so, in 1993 two of the respondents before the Supreme Court who were in the Orissa State Police Service ﬁled an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cutack Bench (which was subsequently converted into a review petition) contending that the earlier decision of the Tribunal holding that the cadres of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Assistant Commandant of the State Military Police constituted a single cadre in Orissa till 4.11.1980 was erroneous and that these two categories never constitute a single cadre at any time. The Tribunal by the Judgement dt. 24.6.1994, (impugned before the Supreme Court) reviewed its earlier Judgement and concluded that there was an error apparent on the face of record and consequently held that posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Assistant Commandant of Orissa Military Police are separate cadres since inception, therefore Assistant Commandants are not eligible for consideration for promotion to IPS. Consequently the initial application of Gopabandhu Biswal was dismissed. Thereagainst, Gopabandhu Biswal approached the Supreme Court. It is in the context of these peculiar facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal cannot ignore its earlier Judgement and if it is to follow its earlier Judgement, the respondents in the application can seek leave if they so desire and any other aggrieved party may also seek special leave to ﬁle an appeal. The Apex court further observed that in the event of the Tribunal coming to a conclusion that its earlier Judgement requires reconsideration, the Tribunal can refer the question to a larger bench so that the persons aggrieved can put-forward their point of view. With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions were allowed and the order of the Tribunal in the review application was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, in accordance with law. It requires to be noticed that the Supreme Court in Gopabandhu Biswal was considering the issue whether the Tribunal ought to have entertained a review application by converting an application ﬁled by the respondents in the Supreme Court. It also requires to be noticed that the Judgement of the apex court relied on by the petitioner, clearly states that the Tribunal may reconsider its earlier decision by referring to a larger bench if a persuasive case were made out by aggrieved party that its earlier view in another Judgement is erroneous. In the case on hand, the order of the learned Tribunal was pronounced by a learned single member. In the exigencies of the administration of the Tribunal normally, the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 hears and decides issues by a Division Bench consisting of a Judicial Member and an Administrative Member. In the circumstances, if the petitioner is aggrieved that the ﬁnal seniority list of Excise Sub-inspectors pertaining to Zone-V was occasioned on account of erroneous interpretation and applicable legal principles, consequent on the Judgement of the Tribunal dt. 17.3.2010 in O.A.No. 1111 of 2010 and batch, it is always open to the petitioner to ﬁle an appropriate application before the Tribunal and canvass the correctness of the earlier decision dt. 17.3.2010; including by contending that the decision dt. 17.3.2010 proceeds on a fundamentally misconceived interpretation of the provisions of the Rule 33(b) of the 1996 Rules. On the above analysis of facts, the petitioner is seen to have no locus standi to challenge the common Judgement dt. 17.3.2011 in O.A.No. 1159 of 2009 and batch, for plurality of reasons. a) The petitioner’s category of service, is not comparable to the litigants at whose instance the Tribunal had delivered the Judgement dt. 17.3.2011. While the petitioner is an Excise Sub- inspector, the contesting parties in the batch of O.As were Excise Inspectors, higher in rank and were holding a promotional category to the category of Excise Sub-inspectors; b) While the petitioner belongs to Zone-V, the dispute resulting in the Judgement dt. 17.3.2010 was in respect of Zone-II; in the context where the service conditions between Zone-II and V do not overlap either at the level of Excise Sub-inspectors or the next higher level Excise Sub-inspectors, since both these are Zonal posts and according to the provisions of Presidential Order each zone is a separate unit for the purpose of appointment, transfer and seniority etc., c) If the decision of the Tribunal dt. 17.3.2010 in O.A.No. 1111 of 2010 and batch is erroneous, the grievance of the petitioner namely of suﬀering collaterally on account of the erroneous decision in drawing up of the seniority list dt. 21.3.2011 must be tackled by an appropriate litigative exercise before the Tribunal and by challenging the Excise Sub-inspectors ﬁnal seniority list dt. 21.3.2011 prepared for Zone-V including by asserting that the earlier Judgement of the Tribunal is erroneous. The petitioner cannot be permitted to jump the litigative gun by ﬁling this writ petition since primary fact and law matrix must be adjudicated by the Tribunal as per the law declared by the Supreme Court in L.Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India[2]. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. The observations made in this Judgement shall however not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the petitioner’s contentions regarding interpretation of Rule 33(b) of the 1996 Rules. There shall however be no order as to costs. __________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 29.11.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 14734 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Dt. 29.11.2011. [1] (1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 447. [2] AIR 1997 SC 1125