THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO. 16373 of 2010 19-07-2010 BETWEEN; K.Ram Prasad ...Petitioner vs. The Government of A.P rep. by Principal Secretary, Transport, R&B Department, Hyderabad and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.16373 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) Heard Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is directed against an order dated 29.06.2010 of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (the Tribunal) rejecting the petitioner’s application O.A.No.1040 of 2007 seeking a declaration that there was no violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in E.V.Chinnaiah Vs. State of A.P. & Others [(2005) 1 SCC 394] ( Chinnaiah one ), in view of the clarificatory order dated 25.09.2006 issued by the Supreme Court in E.V.Chinnaiah Vs. State of A.P. & Others (Chinnaiah two) [I.A.No.2 in Civil Appeal No.6934 of 2000], in the matter of promoting the applicant as a Regional Transport Officer (RTO) and for a declaration that he is entitled to continue as RTO consequent on his selection by the Screening Committee; and cannot be reverted. The relevant facts: The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector on selection by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC); was promoted as Motor Vehicles Inspector on 05-09-1998 and was aspiring for promotion as RTO, a multi zonal post. According to the relevant Rules, the post of Regional Transport Officer must be filled up by considering the claims of Motor Vehicles Inspectors and on preparation of a panel therefor. The Screening Committee, which met on 15-09-2004 considered the case of the petitioner and ten (10) others and the petitioner was issued an order of promotion dated 31-12-2004 and reported for duty as RTO in the office of the Transport Commissioner on 03-01-2005. The case of the petitioner was considered by the Screening Committee as a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste (”B” Category). Till the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chinnaiah one, the categorization of Scheduled Castes in the State into A, B, C and D was operative. Such categorization was invalidated by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chinnaiah one. As the petitioner was included in the panel and promoted on 31.12.2004 as a person belonging to the S.C. “B” category, such promotion would have been invalid on account of the invalidation of the Scheduled Castes categorization consequent on the judgment in Chinnaiah one. Claiming promotion as RTO w.e.f 20-09-2004 the date with effect from which four other individuals belonging to the feeder category of Motor Vehicles Inspectors or Superintendents in the office of the Transport Commissioner were so promoted, the petitioner filed O.A.No.4240 of 2007. By the judgment of the Tribunal dated 01-09- 2009 O.A.No.4240 of 2007 was allowed and the official respondents herein who were the respondents in that O.A. as well, were directed to place the name of the petitioner in the seniority list along with others by taking into account the date of his promotion as RTO w.e.f 20-09-2004 in respect of the panel year 2003-04. The said judgment has become final. As a consequence of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chinnaiah one, all appointments or promotions made to various categories of posts in the State (on the reckoning of Scheduled Caste as a fourfold category A,B,C and D) would have become per se invalid and needed to be reconsidered and reviewed reckoning the entire Scheduled Castes as an integrated community. However, the State sought a clarification of the decision in Chinnaiah one, for a declaration that the judgment be made prospective in operation particularly since many students were admitted to educational institutions on the basis of a reservation matrix reckoning the Scheduled Caste as four categories A,B,C and D and since operation of the judgment in Chinnaiah one would have serious repercussions on the academic career of the students already admitted and on employees who were appointed or promoted on the basis of such categorisation. The Supreme Court by the order dated 25-09-2006 clarified that all selections made and admissions granted in educational institutions prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court (in Chinnaiah one) shall not be affected; all appointments made prior to the judgment of the Court on the basis of reservation permitted by the Legislation which was invalidated by the Court would also not be affected and promotions if any already granted before the judgment of the Court shall also remain unaffected. However, the court clarified that “no admission granted, appointment made or promotion granted subsequent to the judgment of this court, shall be valid if they are in breach of the law laid down by this court in its aforesaid judgment”. As a consequence of the clarification above, any appointment or promotion made prior to 05-11-2004, the date of the judgment in Chinnaiah one would not be affected by the consequences of the ratio and the law declared in Chinnaiah one. As the petitioner was facing reversion or a down-gradation of his seniority in the category of RTO as a consequence of the judgment in Chinnaiah one, notwithstanding his notional promotion as RTO w.e.f 20-09-2004 (in view of the judgment of the Tribunal on 01-09-2009 in O.A.No.4240 of 2007), the petitioner filed O.A.No.1040 of 2007. O.A.No.6926 of 2007 was filed by the 3rd respondent herein assailing the petitioner’s appointment as RTO w.e.f 20-09-2004. The 3rd respondent also filed O.A.No.122 of 2007 claiming that as the Scheduled Caste categorisation was quashed in Chinnaiah one, the State ought not to have promoted the petitioner herein (applicant in O.A.No.1040 of 2007) and contending that in view of the judgment in Chinnaiah one and the clarificatory order dated 25.09.2006 all appointments and promotions made on the basis of the now invalidated Scheduled Caste categorisation would have to be reviewed and orders of promotion given to the petitioner herein should also be reviewed. The 3rd respondent filed O.A.No.6926 of 2007 aggrieved by an order dated 30.12.2004 qua which herein the petitioner herein was promoted as RTO. The Tribunal by the common order dated 29-06-2010 disposed of O.A.No.1040 of 2007 together with O.A.Nos.122 of 2007 and 6926 of 2007, the first of the O.As having been filed by the petitioner herein and the other two filed by the 3rd respondent, as already stated. The Tribunal observed that the earlier O.A filed by the petitioner (being O.A 4240 of 2007), claiming his promotion as RTO consequent on his inclusion in the panel year 2003-04 and w.e.f 20-09-2004 was filed and adjudicated without impleading the affected parties and in particular the 3rd respondent herein and therefore the declaration in that O.A was not binding on the 3rd respondent. In view of the order of the Supreme Court in Chinnaiah one and the clarificatory order dated 25-09-2006 prospectively applying the ratio in Chinnaiah one, the Tribunal held that the relief sought by the petitioner herein in O.A.No.1040 of 2007 could not be granted; that the official respondents should be directed to consider the claim of the 3rd respondent herein (the applicant in O.A.Nos.122 of 2007 and 6926 of 2007) for promotion to the post of RTO in the related vacancies of RTO w.e.f 25-11-2006; dismissed O.A.No.1040 of 2007 and allowed O.A.Nos.122 and 6926 of 2007. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Tribunal insofar as it pertains to O.A.No.6926 of 2007. On a consideration of the relevant factual circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner herein was initially appointed as RTO by an order dated 31-12-2004 and assumed charge of the post on 03-01-2005 having been considered for such promotion as a person belonging to S.C. “B” category. The categorisation of Scheduled Castes by the State was invalidated by the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 05- 11-2004 in Chinnaiah one. As a consequence, all the promotions or appointments made on the basis of the invalid categorisation would have to be nullified and a review of appointments or promotions as the case may be would have been obligatory for the State. Meanwhile however came the clarification in Chinnaiah two on 25-09-2006 qua which only appointments made prior to 05-11-2004 [the judgment in Chinnaiah (one)] and on the basis of the reservations permitted by the Legislation impugned in Chinnaiah one were saved, as also any promotions made before the said date. The clarificatory order clearly emphasised that no appointment or promotion granted subsequent to 05-11-2004 [the date of the judgment in Chinnaiah one] would be valid if they are in breach of the law laid down in Chinnaiah one. The petitioner was declared notionally appointed as RTO w.e.f 20-09-2004 by the judgment of the Tribunal dated 01.09.2009 in O.A.No.4240 of 2007 which no doubt has become final but was subsequent to the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court i.e., 05- 11-2004 in Chinnaiah one. Even if the order of the Tribunal is conceptually treated as an order issued by the competent authority, namely, the State, it would be an order issued subsequent to 05-11- 2004 and is therefore not saved by the clarificatory order of the Supreme Court in Chinnaiah two, dated 25-09-2006. The mere fact that the judgment in O.A.No.4240 of 2007 dated 01-09-2009 has become final would not in any way alter the trajectory of the law declared by the Supreme Court and in view of the clarificatory order issued in Chinnaiah two on 25-09-2006. On the analysis above, the order of the Tribunal is impeccable and warrants no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO, J 19th JULY 2010. TSNR