HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.22821 OF 2009 Dt.14.12.2009 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another .. Petitioners And G.Prabhakar .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.22821 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) Respondents in O.A.No.521 of 2009 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal seek to question the order of the Tribunal dated 9.7.2009. Respondent herein/applicant before the Tribunal was working as Superintendent in the office of the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment. He was transferred and promoted as Divisional Panchayat Officer on 27.3.2003. However, he made a request to the Commissioner to allow him to go back to the post of Superintendent, which he was holding. Since the said request was rejected by the Commissioner on 27.10.2007, he approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.6833 of 2007. The said O.A. was decided on merits by the Tribunal by order dated 31.3.2008 wherein the Tribunal gave a finding that there is nothing to show in evidence that the respondent was regularized or confirmed in the post of Divisional Panchayat Officer even after four years and consequently his lein in the post of Superintendent is not terminated. The said O.A. was therefore allowed setting aside the impugned orders and the petitioners herein were directed to reconsider the application of the applicant for joining back as Superintendent. It is not in dispute that vide proceedings No.11078/ CPR&RE/E1/2007, dated 22.7.2008, the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj & Rural Employment, passed a detailed order wherein the request of the respondent was favourably considered and it was ordered to take him back as Superintendent in the office of the Commissioner, PR & RE on reversion at his own request. Since then the respondent is working as Superintendent. However, under the impugned memo No.13655/ Estt.VI- A2/2008, dated 17.1.2009, he was again given a show cause notice by the Government as to why the said order of the Commissioner dated 22.7.2008 referred to above, should not be cancelled and why he should not be sent back again as Divisional Panchayat Officer and the explanation of the respondent was called for. Questioning the said order, the present O.A. was filed by the respondent. During the hearing, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the present impugned show cause notice amounts to sitting in judgment over the decision of the earlier O.A., which has become final and when the order dated 22.7.2008 was passed in pursuance of the directions of the Tribunal, it is not open for the petitioners herein to reconsider the said decision all over again. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal allowed the present O.A. Questioning the said order, the petitioners herein have approached this Court by this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. It is not in dispute that the earlier order of the Tribunal was implemented vide orders dated 22.7.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment and at the request of the respondent he was reverted and posted as Superintendent in the office of the Commissioner. The very same decision, which was taken in pursuance of the directions of the Tribunal, cannot now be allowed to be reviewed as proposed in the impugned notice. Even the learned Government Pleader submits that irrespective of any specific order terminating the lein of the respondent from the post of Superintendent, in view of the fact that he was working as Divisional Panchayat Officer for a period of four years, he is deemed to have been confirmed in the said post. We are afraid we cannot take the aforesaid contention for the examination in view of the fact that the very same contention was held against the petitioners by the Tribunal in para 10 of its order in O.A.No.6833 of 2007 referred to above. The said contention therefore is not open to be re- agitated all over again as the principles of res judicata and in any case constructive res judicata, do not allow the petitioners to contend the very same contention in the present writ petition or the O.A in view of the findings given in the earlier O.A. which had become final. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is clearly sustainable. We therefore do not see any error committed by the Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.521 of 2009, dated 9.7.2009, does not require any correction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 14.12.2009 kpr