THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKER WRIT PETITION No.23756 of 2010 Between M. Udaya sree And The Collector and three others THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKER WRIT PETITION No.23756 of 2010 Oral Order : ( Per Sri GM, J ) The writ petitioner was originally appointed as Grade II Hostel Welfare Officer with effect from 4-2-1986 in Prakasham District and her services were regularized in the said post and that the probation was also declared. On passing the requisite departmental tests, the petitioner was promoted the post of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade I with effect from 5.8.2005 and her services were also regularised in the said post. The Seniority list of the Grade-I Hostel Welfare department were finalized and communicated by the 2nd respondent herein vide memo dated 27-7-2007 wherein the petitioner was included at Sl.No.28. The 4th respondent herein approached the Tribunal in O.A.No.1183 of 2008 inter alia seeking to set aside the proceedings dated 5.8.2005 as illegal and arbitrary. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. by duly setting aside the writ petitioner promotion order dated 5-8-2005, by its judgment dated 1-8- 2008 in O.A.No.1183 of 2008. The writ petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No.26836 of 2008 and this Court by its judgment dated 17-9-2009 remitted back the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. After remand from this Court the 4th respondent filed MA No.4167 of 2009 for amendment of the O.A. and the same was allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated 27-1-2010. According to the official respondents by the date of promotion of the writ petitioner as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I, the 4th respondent-applicant did not pass the departmental tests and so, she was not eligible for such promotion and therefore the case of the writ petitioner was considered and she was promoted as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I. The 4th respondent- applicant contends that she is entitled to be considered for promotion as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I even though she has not passed the prescribed tests, as the stipulation for passing the tests and clarification issued relied upon by the respondents was deleted and fresh ad hoc rules were issued in G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 18.5.1999, stating that the said ad hoc rules would come into force with effect from 22.4.1997 i.e. with effect from issuance of G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 22.4.1997. In view of new ad hoc rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 18.5.1999, the instructions issued in G.O.ms.No.165 dated 22.4.1997 and the subsequent clarification get merged in G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 18.5.1999, therefore, the applicant was entitled to be considered for promotion in 2005 itself, even though she did not pass the prescribed tests as on the date of issue of promotion to the unofficial respondent, in view of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.225. Considering the rival contentions of both the parties held that the Tribunal non-consideration of the case of the applicant in accordance with the existing ad hoc rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 18.5.1999 is not proper and the order promoting the unofficial respondent who is junior to the applicant is liable to be set aside and accordingly allowed O.A. Hence, this writ petition. Sri Govind, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the 4th respondent approached the Tribunal in O.A.No.1183 of 2008 nearly 3 years of promotion of the writ petitioner and in fact the 4th respondent has to prefer the O.A. within one year as per Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and that the Tribunal instead of dismissing the O.A. on the ground of delay and laches allowed the O.A. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner though the writ petitioner did not file counter affidavit nothing is precluded the Tribunal to consider the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, and ought to have dismissed the O.A. On the other hand, Sri J.R. Manoher Rao, learned counsel for the 4th respondent-applicant submitted that the petitioner neither filed any counter affidavit nor participated in the hearing when the delay condonation petition was filed and ultimately the case was disposed of on merits. Learned counsel further submitted that the 4th respondent is senior to the petitioner and she joined in the year 1984 and that the writ petitioner was promoted ignoring her claim that she has completed 45 years and therefore in view of the amended rules the case of the 4th respondent needs to be considered. The point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the judgment rendered by the Tribunal suffers from any infirmity warranting interference of this Court. No doubt as per section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act the applicant has to approach the Tribunal within the time stipulated therein, at the same time it is noteworthy that the Tribunal has condoned the delay in filing the O.A. considering the explainantion offered by the applicant therein, wherein as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, after issuing the notice to the writ petitioner in the delay condonation petition the writ petitioner did not chose to file any counter in the condone delay petition nor contested the matter, therefore the delay condonation petition was ordered. The 4th respondent was initially appointed in the year 2004 and the writ petitioner was appointed in the year 2006, it follows that the writ petition is junior to the 4th respondent. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition that the settled things cannot be unsettled after lapse of several years, in the instant case, according to the 4th respondent proceedings dated 5.8.2005 were not communicated to her and only in the year 2007 when a seniority list was prepared she filed the O.A in the year 2007 explaining the reasons for the delay, which was condoned by the Tribunal. Even after remand from this Court the writ petitioner did not file any counter in the O.A. before the Tribunal. In view of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.225, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the 4th respondent was entitled to be considered for promotion even though she did not pass the prescribed tests as on the date of issue of promotion to the writ petitioner, and therefore allowed the O.A. We therefore do not see any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 27-7-2011 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKER WRIT PETITION No.23756 of 2010 27-7-2011