THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.25344 and 25351 of 2011 Dated:13.09.2011 Between: B.Babu, And others. … Petition And Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Agriculture Production Commissioner & Principal, Secretary to Govt.A.P., Dept of Horticulture, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, A.P., And others. ... Responde THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.25344 and 25351 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) These two writ petitions are filed against the common interlocut order dated 06.09.2011 in O.A.Nos.7265 and 7358 of 2011 passed by Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. By the said order, the inte prayer made by the petitioners was rejected, notice was ordered and observation was made that promotions if any to the post of Deputy Direc of Horticulture for the panel year 2010-2011 will be subject to outcome the main Original Applications. The petitioner in W.P.No.25351 of 2011 filed O.A.No.7265 of 2 assailing the Government Order, being G.O.Ms.No.192, dated 17.06.20 whereby and whereunder the third respondent herein was promoted Deputy Director of Horticulture. He also assailed G.O.Ms.No.286, da 11.12.2009 wherein the fourth respondent was promoted as Dep Director of Horticulture against roaster point 25, which is reserved Scheduled Tribe (ST). By way of an interim relief, he prayed the Tribu to stay the DPC and for a direction to include his name for promo against ST backlog vacancy at roaster point Nos.8 and 25. Petitioners in W.P.No.25344 of 2011 filed O.A.No.7358 of 2 challenging the Government Order, being G.O.Ms.No.214, da 29.08.2011. By the said Government Order, the Government ordered include 23 Assistant Directors for the panel 2010-2011 for the promotio the post of Deputy Director, Horticulture. By way of interim relief, petitioners sought stay of G.O.Ms.No.214. The Tribunal after recording the submissions of the petitioners, Government Pleader, and the Counsel for the contesting respondents ca to the conclusion that the petitioners are far below in the seniority list; t have not completed the minimum period of service of three years, therefore, their names could not be considered for the promotion to post of Deputy Director of Horticulture. The Tribunal also recorded submission of the respondents that in the panel of 23 officers for 20 2011 there is 1 ST and 5 Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates, which sho that adequacy was achieved. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the promotion of respondents ignoring the claims of ST candidates is illegal unconstitutional. He would contend that the promotion of respondent No and 4 in W.P.No.25351 of 2011 against the vacancies earmarked for ST the communal roaster is void, and therefore, without rectifying the de the DPC could not have been allowed to proceed further for the purpose preparation of panel for 2010-2011. There is no dispute that the writ petitions are filed aga interlocutory order. The learned Tribunal while refusing to stay promotions or the proceedings pursuant to the DPC, so as to safeguard interests of the petitioners, made observation that any promotion given the post of Deputy Director of Horticulture will be subject to result of Original Applications. In many cases involving disputes about promot similar orders are passed by this Court as well as the Supreme Cou Ordinarily, when once promotion orders are issued pursuant to elabo exercise undertaken by the Departmental Promotion Committee, the Co exercising powers of judicial review would not intervene at the interlocut stage and stay the promotions. Any order staying the promotion wo result in creating sometimes chaotic conditions and deprive those wai in the wings to be promoted to the post which became vacant due promotion of those candidates in the higher post. Therefore, we are inclined to agree with the Counsel that there are strong reasons for stay the promotions. Indeed, G.O.Ms.No.192 was issued in June 2005, G.O.Ms.No.286 was issued in December 2009. In all probability, respondents have joined as Deputy Directors and discharging functio At this point of time, question of stay of promotion would not ari Similarly, by G.O.Ms.No.214, as many as 23 Assistant Directors are be empanelled. If at this stage, the promotions are stayed, it would certa cause hardship and heartburn to those Assistant Directors. Instead of t if an observation is made that all the promotions given from out of approved panel will be subject to result of Original Applications, an direction is issued to Government to make it very clear in the orders would safeguard the interests of the petitioners as well. We make it c that if it is ultimately found that in the roaster of 100 points, if there are adequate number of STs i.e., 6, and all those persons who do not belon ST shall have to be reverted because appointment of a non-Schedu Tribe candidate against ST vacancy is void under the Constitution India. Except making these observations, we are not inclined to interf with the impugned orders. As there is a serious allegation that candidates are appointed against roaster points earmarked for STs, request the learned Tribunal to hear the Original Applications and disp of them as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of th months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitions, with the above observations, are accordin dismissed without any order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO ________________ (K.G.SHANKAR 13.09.2011 vs