Judgement

RANGANATHAN, J.:- The petitioner filed two petitions before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The first petition (R.P. No. 316/77) requested the Tribunal to declare the action of the State of. Andhra Pradesh in isolating and framing the rules for the post of Lecturer in Radiological Physics and converting the non-gazetted post held by the 4th respondent Shri D. K. Subrahmanyam Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) as gazetted and in appointing the 4th respondent to the said post"; the other (R.P. 69/ 84) contained a prayer to declare the Government order by which the post of Lecturer in Radiological Physics at the Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam, was upgraded to that of Professor of Radiological Physics and G.O. Ms. No. 651 dated 20-10-83, promoting the 3rd respondent (respondent 4 in the earlier petition) as Professor in Radiological Physics was arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Tribunal discussed the various points raised by the petitioner but ultimately disposed of both petitions with certain directions regarding the regularisation of and the grant of certain allowances to the petitioner. This was on 23rd April, 1984. A review petition appears to have been filed by the petitioner (No. 607/84), which was dismissed by the Tribunal on 24-12-84.

2. Thereupon the petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal to this Court from the order of the Tribunal which was granted. This was Civil Appeal No. 4344 of 1986. The petitioner also filed Writ Petition No. 4619 of 1985 praying for a writ. of certiorari calling upon the State Government to explain the basis of the various Government orders conferring benefits on the respondent, a writ of quo warranto restraining the respondent from holding the post mentioned above without having any qualifications therefor and also for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to appoint the petitioner to the above post of Professor. The Civil Appeal as well as the writ petition were heard by three learned Judges of this court, who dismissed the same on February 7, 1989. The petitioner thereafter preferred Review Petitions Nos. 177 and 194 of 1989, against the above two orders and these were also dismissed on 30th March, 1989. Though the petitioner has now filed what purport to be aplications for directions in the above civil appeal, writ petition and review petitions, what the petitioner is seeking in substance is a review of the earlier orders of this Court in the writ petition as well as the Civil Appeal. On an objection raised by the office to the maintainability of these applications, the matter was posted before Court and it was directed that these matters be listed subject to the question of maintainability being agitated before the Bench.

3. We are clearly of the opinion that these applications are not maintainable. The petitioner, who appeared in person, referred to the judgment in Antulays case (1988) 2 SCC 602: (AIR 1988 SC 1531). We are, however, of the opinion that the principle of that case is not applicable here. All the points which the petitioner urged regarding the constitutionality of the Government orders in question as well as the appointment of respondent instead of petitioner to the post in question had been urged before the Bench, which heard the civil appeal and writ petitions originally. The petitioner himself stated that he was heard by the Bench at some length. It is, therefore, clear that the matters were disposed of after a consideration of all the points urged by the petitioner and the mere fact that the order does not discuss the contentions or give reasons cannot entitle the petitioner. to have what is virtually a second review.

4. We heard the petitioner at some length as he appeared in person and appeared to be oppressed by a strong sense of injustice that his qualification and long experience have been ignored while, at almost every stage, the respondent who, according to him, was less qualified and had