HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.Nos.10148 and 10149 of 2009 Dt.23.12.2009 W.P.No.10148 of 2009 Between: N.Sujatha and another .. Petitioners And M.Ramakrishna Rao and another ..Respondents W.P.No.10149 of 2009 Between: Ch.V.Ramanamma and others .. Petitioners And M.Ramakrishna Rao and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.Nos.10148 and 10149 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) These two writ petitions are at the instance of the affected third parties, who sought leave of this Court and have challenged the impugned judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. By our order, dated 13.5.2009, we had granted leave in both the writ petitions and have admitted the writ petitions and granted interim suspension of the impugned order. Both the learned counsel have brought to our notice that the issue involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.Nos.9980, 10017 and 10021 of 2009 disposed of by us on 27.11.2009 by recording as follows: “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.” Accordingly, both the learned counsel submit that the same order may operate in these cases and the writ petitions can be disposed of following the aforesaid judgment. In these cases also the same issue was considered by the Tribunal and as such following the aforesaid judgment, these two writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 23.12.2009 kpr