THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.15213 OF 2009 Dt.12.8.2009 Between: D.S.R.C.Murthy … Petitioner And V.Ravindranath and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.15213 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Vilas v. Afzulpurkar) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner after seeking leave of this Court. Petitioner states that he is affected by the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.4331, 4334 and 4336 of 2009, dated 19.3.2009. O.A.No.4336 of 2009 was filed by the 1st respondent herein questioning the provisional seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Inspectors in Multi Zone-II under the impugned proceedings in Cr.No.2399/2009/CPE/L3-1, dated 9.3.2009, of the 2nd respondent in the said O.A. While the Tribunal has declined to exercise jurisdiction against the impugned order, the only grievance of the petitioner herein is that the Tribunal has made observations and gave directions while dismissing the said O.As., and the said observations and directions are affecting the writ petitioner herein who is deprived of his promotion. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 to 4 and Sri P.Kishore Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent through caveat. It is not in controversy that the proceedings in question before the Tribunal where the integrated seniority list of Prohibition and Excise Inspectors of Multi Zone-II was drawn up. The grievance of the applicant in the O.A., was therefore with regard to the manner in which the said seniority list is prepared. The Tribunal rightly considered the scope of the O.A. and declined to interfere with the integrated seniority list communicated by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Guntur inasmuch, as the said respondent had called for objections from all concerned and it is for the applicants to file objections to the provisional seniority list rather than questioning the same in the said O.As The Tribunal therefore declined to exercise jurisdiction and all the O.As., were disposed of permitting the applicants to file objections. However, in the operative portion of the order the Tribunal has observed as hereunder: “The respondents shall finalize the same depending upon the orders to be passed in the batch of cases in O.A.Nos.2678, 1243 and 1244 of 2008 wherein the zonal seniority lists have been challenged. This Tribunal is not inclined to interfere with the provisional integrated seniority list communicated by the D.C., Guntur and Kurnool and promotions are to be affected only after finalization of the provisional integrated seniority list. Accordingly, the O.As., are disposed of. No costs.” The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the aforesaid directions of the Tribunal would amount to stopping the entire exercise of finalizing the seniority list and affecting the promotions thereto, inasmuch as the batch of O.As., referred to in the order as above, are still pending consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Tribunal has declined to exercise jurisdiction, any direction or observation while dismissing the O.A., was not warranted. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents to and 3 also supported the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent appearing through caveat submits that disposal of the O.As., referred to in the aforesaid sentence in the impugned order was also essential and the said O.As are likely to be disposed of shortly and as such no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. There are two distinct situations where the Court or the Tribunal considers that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding and in such case it is well settled that while dismissing such proceedings on the ground of want of jurisdiction, orders or directions cannot be issued as the same would also be without jurisdiction. There may be other situation where the Court or Tribunal may have jurisdiction, but it declines to exercise the said jurisdiction. The same principle as in the first situation would apply in such second contingency as well. In the present case, the Tribunal declined to exercise jurisdiction, but, however, passed orders in the O.As., as to how and in which manner the seniority list is to be finalized. In our view, the aforesaid sentence effectively amounts to granting of a direction while dismissing the O.As and as such is not sustainable. We are also of the view that while the Tribunal declined to exercise jurisdiction, it has issued a direction making observations therein particularly when the same affects the right of other employees, who are not parties to the O.As. In that view also, impugned direction was not warranted. In the circumstances, we set aside the aforesaid extracted portion of the direction in the order impugned viz., “promotions are to be affected only after finalization of the provisional integrated seniority list”. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 12.8.2009 kpr