THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.461 OF 2010 Dt.27.1.2010 Between: P.Koteswara Rao and others .. Petitioners And Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.461 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents 4 and 5. Petitioners-applicants in O.A.No.6860 of 2009 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal have questioned the final order of the Tribunal dated 23.12.2009. Petitioners herein are working as Deputy Executive Engineers in Panchayat Raj Department. They contended that their names were shown in the provisional seniority list published on 23.12.2004 and finalized as per the official seniority list dated 28.6.2005 and in the said list they were shown at Sl.Nos.2, 10, 8 and 18 respectively in the category of Assistant Engineers and based on the said seniority position they were promoted as Deputy Executive Engineers in April 2006, October 2005, June 2008 and March 2006 respectively and they have been working as such. Petitioners’ were aggrieved by the notice issued to them by the Government in memo No.SO-I(1) 18132/1997, dated 2.6.2009. By virtue of the said memo, the Government desired to revise the provisional seniority list and the position assigned to the petitioners in the category of Assistant Engineers by applying the provision contained in Rule 16(h) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘the Rules’) in accordance with the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.6500 of 2006, dated 27.2.2009, and the further orders of this Court in W.P.No.22978 of 2008 and batch, dated 18.12.2008. The said show cause notice was given on the premise that the petitioners have passed Accounts Test on various dates as shown in the said show cause notice and by giving effect to the legal position as settled by the judgment of this Court referred to above, the ranking assigned to the petitioners in the provisional seniority list was proposed to be altered. For this purpose, the said show cause notice was given to the petitioners requiring them to file objections within 15 days from the date of receipt of the memo. The petitioners did not file any objections, but have approached the Tribunal challenging the said show cause notice by contending firstly that the seniority of the petitioners having been settled as long as on 28.6.2005, it cannot be revised at this distance of time. It was also contended that the impugned notice is defective inasmuch as the notice itself shows that the proposed placements of the petitioners in the proposed revision will be communicated later on. Counters were filed by the Government bringing to the notice of the Tribunal that the seniority list is being sought to be revised only in accordance with the Government memo No.2025/Estt.II/2009-1, dated 5.5.2009, wherein the re-fixing of date of commencement of the probation was necessary in view of Rule 16(h) of the Rules. The Government also brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the said show cause notice is accompanied by annexure, which shows the proposed revised seniority list position of other Assistant Engineers, two of whom were respondents 4 and 5 herein. It was therefore contended before the Tribunal that the show cause notice being given to the petitioners only to enable them to file objections and the said O.A. has been filed without any cause of action. On consideration of the aforesaid contentions and the material on record, the Tribunal agreed with the respondent-Government and gave specific directions permitting the petitioners herein to submit objections within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order and the respondents were directed to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders as per rules and accordingly the O.A. was disposed of by vacating the interim order of status quo granted earlier by the Tribunal. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition is filed. We have heard Smt.K.Sesharajyam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, who has reiterated the said contentions. She also contended that the impugned notice itself is vague inasmuch as though the petitioners have been called upon to submit objections, their position in the proposed exercise has not been intimated to them and the impugned notice itself shows that the proposed provisional list and the appropriate places assigned to the petitioners will be communicated later. Learned counsel therefore says that to enable the petitioners to file objections they do not know their position in the proposed revised provisional seniority list and therefore the said notice is defective. Per contra, learned Government Pleader submits that the seniority position is sought to be revised based upon the orders of the Tribunal as confirmed by this Court in the writ petition referred to above wherein Rule 16(h) of the Rules has to be given effect to. Learned Government Pleader also contends that in the said impugned notice itself the dates of passing of Accounts Test by each of the applicant is mentioned and the comparative position with regard to other Assistant Engineers with reference to their dates of passing of Accounts Test is also mentioned in the annexure appended to the said notice. Learned Government Pleader therefore submits that necessary information required for the petitioners to enable them to file objections is already contained in the show cause notice and annexure to the notice giving dates of all Assistant Engineers, who were regularized under G.O.Ms.No.413 , dated 29.8.1983, taking the commencement of probation with effect from 10.8.1982 i.e., the last regular candidate and the said list also covers the details with respect to the impleaded respondents 4 and 5 herein, who were shown at Sl.Nos.15 and 19. In this background, the learned Government Pleader submits that necessary details are already available and there is no impediment for the petitioners to file objections and, therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. Learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents 4 and 5 supports the contentions of the learned Government Pleader and submits that though his clients are seniors to the petitioners they have been deprived of the promotional posts. He therefore submits that the petitioners were not justified in approaching the Tribunal without filing objections. We have considered all the rival contentions and we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal impugned herein does not warrant any interference except to the extent as indicated below. The show cause notice, which is impugned in the writ petition, in our view, contains the necessary details as to why and how the seniority list is sought to be revised. The show cause notice contains the details so far as petitioners are concerned and the annexure contains the details of other Assistant Engineers, who have passed the Accounts Test much earlier to the petitioners. The petitioners are, however, justified in pointing out that the position which is likely to be assigned to them in the said proposed revised seniority list being not communicated to the petitioners they are not in a position to file objections. No doubt, all other details are furnished in the impugned notice and the annexure appended to it. However, in order to shorten this litigation, we are of the view that the official respondents may prepare and communicate the proposed revised seniority list by reconciling the position of the petitioners with reference to the date of passing of Accounts Test as well as by taking into consideration the annexure to the show cause notice. The order of the Tribunal therefore shall stand confirmed with the only modification that the official respondents shall compile and communicate the proposed revised list to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners shall file their objections to the said show cause notice together with the communication as referred to above within three weeks from the date of receipt of the said communication and the official respondents shall pass final orders with regard to the proposed revised seniority list within a period of four weeks thereafter. Since the petitioners are admittedly holding the promotional posts and working as such, we are of the view that till the final orders are passed on the proposed revised seniority list, their holding of promotional posts shall not be disturbed and their holding of such promotional posts shall be subject to the final orders that may be passed by the Government on the proposed revised seniority list. With the above directions, the order of the Tribunal is modified. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 27.1.2010 Note: Issue copy within one week B.O. kpr