THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.No.11427 of 2011 ORAL ORDER (per Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard Smt.K.Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Government Pleader for Services for Respondents 2 and 3. The writ petition is directed against the interim order of learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal dated 5.11.2008 in O.A.No.8996 of 2008 whereby G.O.Ms.No.112 Irrigation & Command Area Development Department dated 11.7.2008 and consequential proceedings if any, were suspended, insofar as applicant-first respondent herein is concerned. In G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 11.7.2008 (impugned in the O.A), the first respondent-applicant and six other officers working in various capacities in Zone-V were identified for repatriation to various zones. Insofar as the applicant is concerned, he is identified for repatriation to Zone-I. The applicant was recruited through Public Service Commission in 1985 for appointment as Assistant Executive Engineer and was allotted to Zone-V. On account of large scale irregularities in implementation of the A.P. Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 (the Presidential Order) and on account of considerable distress in public services in the State due to irregularities in implementation of the Presidential Order, the State constituted a High Powered Committee and in consequence, issued G.O.Ms.No.610 dated 30.12.1985. Even after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.610, the process of reviewing irregularities in implementing provisions of the Presidential Order did not follow. Eventually, in the Irrigation Department, implementation of the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.610 occurred by issuing G.O.Ms.No.112 i.e. the G.O. impugned before the Tribunal repatriating the applicant to Zone-I on the assumption that his recruitment to Zone-V in 1985 was in excess of vacancies earmarked as unreserved. The first respondent would however contend that he was recruited as a non-local candidate in the 40% vacancies available for unreserved candidates. The applicant challenged the orders in G.O.Ms.No.112 inter alia on the ground that orders for his repatriation were issued without any notice or opportunity to him. Under these circumstances, the order of suspension of orders in G.O.Ms.No.112 was issued by the learned Tribunal. In the above factual scenario, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Tribunal. This writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Since the validity of G.O.Ms.No.112 which is the subject matter of O.A.No.8996 of 2008 falls within a narrow compass i.e. whether such order could be passed without notice or opportunity to the applicant, we consider it appropriate to request the learned Tribunal to expeditiously dispose of the substantive application i.e. O.A.No.8996 of 2008, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J DATE: 27.10.2011 DA