THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.1006 OF 2008 DATE: 25.01.2008 Between: Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi and four others … Petitioners AND Sri M. Srinivas, S/o Sri Ramachandraiah ….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.1006 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard learned Assistant Solicitor General, Government of India, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, appearing for the petitioners, as well as Sri K. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. Aggrieved by the order, dated 20.11.2007, disposing of O.A.No.355 of 2007, filed by respondent, with certain directions and observations and also the order, dated 01.01.2008, rejecting the Review Petition No.29 of 2007, filed by petitioners, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Petitioners are respondents and respondent is applicant, in O.A., before the Tribunal. 4. The case of respondent is that petitioners have not considered his claim for appointment as Mazdoor in the Faculty of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, MCEME, Secunderabad, against the OBC quota. 5. The relief in the said O.A., filed by the respondent, reads thus: “ Hence, in the interest of justice, it is prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the cancellation of the earlier Employment Notice published on 27.8.2005 for filling up the 12 vacancies of Mazdoor posts in the Faculty of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering MCEMNE, Secunderabad as illegal and without any valid reasons and consequently direct the respondents to issue appointment orders to the applicant or direct the respondents to consider the applicant for appointment as Mazdoor post in the Faculty of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering MCEME, Secunderabad being No. 2 in the reserve list dated 20.1.2007 and be pleased to pass such other and further order or orders as may be deemed fit of justice.” 6. Obviously respondent had filed the O.A., challenging the notification and the selection process as well on the ground that though he belongs to OBC category, instead of allocating a seat to him under the OBC category, the same had been conferred on an Ex-serviceman, which is contrary to law. 7. Learned Assistant Solicitor General, representing the Central Government, submits that, though, as on the date of filing of O.A., selections have already been made and, pursuant to such selections, the persons who got orders of appointment have already joined the service, respondent has not made the persons/beneficiaries of such selection, whose services may likely to be affected, as parties to the O.A. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Assistant Solicitor General that the order in O.A., passed by the Tribunal, is contrary to the principles of natural justice. 8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that in view of the contention of learned Assistant Solicitor General, he would like to file a fresh O.A., before the Tribunal, making all the necessary persons, whose services may likely to be affected, according to the learned Assistant Solicitor General, as respondents. 9. In view of the said submission of learned counsel appearing for respondent, we feel it appropriate to permit the respondent to approach the Tribunal by way of filing a fresh O.A, making all the necessary persons as parties, whose names were already indicated by petitioners, in the counter-affidavit, filed before the Tribunal, and invite a judgment on merits after hearing the said affected parties also. 10. For the foregoing, the orders, dated 20.11.2007 and 01.01.2008, passed by the Tribunal, in O.A.No.355 of 2007, filed by the respondent, with certain directions and observations, and rejecting the Review Petition No.29 of 2007, filed by the petitioners, respectively, are liable to be set aside with liberty to respondent to file a fresh O.A., before the Tribunal, making all the necessary persons, whose services may likely to be affected, according to learned Assistant Solicitor General, as parties, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and upon such filing of O.A., the Tribunal shall dispose of the same, in accordance with law, afresh. 11. Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed, at the stage of admission, setting aside the orders, dated 20.11.2007 and 01.01.2008, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.355 of 2007, filed by the respondent, with certain directions and observations, and Review Petition No.29 of 2007, filed by the petitioners, respectively. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 25th JANUARY 2008 KA