G. YETHIRAJULU, J.

( 1 ) THESE batch of writ petitions were filed by the same set of petitioners against the same set of respondents seeking different reliefs under different petitions.

( 2 ) IN Writ Petition No. 19826 of 1999 the petitioners sought for the relief in the form of issuing a writ of Certiorari quashing the order of the a. P. Administrative Tribunal ( the tribunal for brevity) dated 30-3-1999 in o. A. Nos. 23269 and 23270 of 1990 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to fix their seniority as per the judgment dated 15-7-1986 in R. P. Nos. 1353/84, 1878/84 and 269/85 and to direct review of promotions.

( 3 ) WRIT Petition No. 19827 of 1999 was filed for the similar relief sought for in w. P. No. 19826 of 1999 against the order of the tribunal dated 30-3-1999 in o. A. No. 3249 of 1993.

( 4 ) W. P. NO. 19828 of 1999 was filed for the similar relief sought for in w. P. No. 19826 of 1999 against the order of the tribunal dated 30-3-1999 passed in o. A. No. 4328 of 1996.

( 5 ) THE 1st petitioner filed common affidavit in all the writ petitions. Therefore all the writ petitions are clubbed and the common order is passed.

( 6 ) IT is the contention of the petitioners that they were originally appointed on 26-6-1975 and 30-7-1975 respectively as L. D. typists in a regular selection made by the District Selection Committee (DSC) {the date of entry into the commercial Taxes Department has to be noted}. The 3rd respondent in his proceedings Rc. No. 5841/76 dated 15-12-1978 regularised the services of the 1st petitioner w. e. f. 26-6-1975 and that of the 2nd petitioner w. e. f. 30-7-1975 by showing them at S. Nos. 2 and 7 respectively. Their probation was also declared by the 3rd respondent in the proceedings in Rc. No. 5841/76 dated 21-2-1978 w. e. f. 26-6-1975 and 12-7-1977 respectively by showing them at S. Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. A seniority list was prepared by the 3rd respondent and communicated to the employees in the proceedings No. 1787/79 dated 16-1-1981. Questioning the said seniority list R. P. No. 472 of 1981 was filed before the erstwhile tribunal and it was allowed with certain directions. In pursuance of the directions in the order of the R. P. , a seniority list was prepared and communicated in proceedings in Rc. No. 4473/83 dated 12-6-1984. In the said seniority list the dates of regularization were not followed. The 2nd petitioner filed R. P. No. 1378 of 1984 challenging the seniority list of 1984. Others working in the same division also filed R. P. Nos. 1353 of 1984 and 269 of 1985 and the then tribunal disposed of all the three R. Ps. by a common judgment dated 15-7-1986 with certain directions to the 3rd respondent regarding the seniority. In pursuance of the judgment of the tribunal dated 15-7-1986 an integrated seniority list was prepared in Rc. No. 451/86 dated 16-9-1986 and in pursuance of that the 1st petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant in rc. No. 6945/87 dated 17-9-1987 by showing him at S. No. 29. The 2nd petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant through proceedings in Rc. No. 7404/87 dated 19-10-1987 showing him at S. No. 2 in the said proceedings. One Kothapalli nageswara Sastry and two others filed R. P. Nos. 5801/87 questioning the preparation of the integrated seniority list without making the affected persons as parties. But the tribunal dismissed the said R. P. on 19-1-1988 observing that the seniority list appeared to be prima facie incorrect and not in accordance with the rules. The respondents would have to look into the matter and take a correct decision. Basing on the judgment dated 19-1-1988 the 1st respondent issued proceedings in G. O. Ms. No. 194/1 dated 16-3-1990 without notice to the petitioners mentioning that the orders of the 3rd respondent in regularizing the services of the petitioners from the date of their temporary appointment be cancelled and their services are regularized from the date

Click Here to Read the rest of this document