B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) BOTH these writ petitions may be disposed of by a common order, since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 801 of 2002 filed O. A. No. 9633 of 2001 in the Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal at hyderabad (for short the Tribunal ) with a prayer to issue "appropriate directions calling for the records pertaining to the secret preparation of seniority list in the category of Tahsildars without communicating the same to anybody and making further promotions on the said list to the posts of Deputy Collectors and the consequential Memo No. 63223/ser. I (2)/ 2001-2, dated 16-11-2001 issued by the first respondent-Government and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction". The petitioner also prayed for a consequential direction directing the respondents not to make any promotions to the posts of Deputy Collectors until and unless the seniority list in the category of tahsildars is communicated and finalised and for the further directidn to the respondents not to relax the rules in favour of directly recruited Deputy Tahsildars for which no provision exists in the statutory rules.

( 3 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 802 of 2002 filed O. A. No. 9149 of 2001 before the tribunal more or less with similar prayer challenging the very same Memo issued by the first respondent-Government. Similar consequential directions are sought for directing the respondents to prepare a fresh seniority list in the category of Deputy tahsildars and Tahsildars based upon the dates of declaration of probation in the category of Deputy Tahsildars. The petitioner accordingly prayed for a direction to promote him as Deputy Collector with all consequential benefits.

( 4 ) BOTH the petitioners were initially appointed as Probationary Revenue inspectors. They were promoted as Deputy tahsildars in the year 1984 and subsequently as Tahsildars. It is not necessary to notice the facts in detail since we do not propose to express any opinion whatsoever on the entitlement of the petitioners for promotion as Deputy collectors since the same is the subject matter of Original Applications filed by them and pending in the Tribunal.

( 5 ) BOTH the petitioners challenged the Memo No. 63223/ser. I (2)/2001-2, dated 16-11-2001 issued by the Government of andhra Pradesh, which is to the following effect: government OF ANDHRA pradesh REVENUE (SER. I) department memo No. 63223/ Dated: 16-11-2001 ser. I (2) / 2001-2 sub: Public Services - Revenue department - Revision of seniority in the cadre of Tahsildars - Review dpc conducted on 30-10-2001 - certain clarification - Regarding. Ref. (1) Orders of A. P. A. T. dated 16-3-1996 in VMA No. 16/96 in o. A. No. 7171/95. (2) CLR s notification No. XI/197/ pdl. /95-96/zdne-VI dated 16-3-1996. (3) From the Spl. CS and L. A. , Letter no. XI/705/2001 dated 14-3-2001. (4) Representation from A. P. Revenue services Association dated 31-10-2001. (5) Government Memo Np. 63223/ser. I (2)/2001-2 dt. 7-11-2001. (6) From the Spl. CS and CCLA, lr. No. XI/705/2001 dated 8-11-2001. The attention of the Spl. Chief secretary and Chief Commissioner of land Administration is invited to the references cited and he is informed that as seen from the orders in the reference 2nd cited, promotions to the cadre of tahsildars from 1995-96 onwards have been made purely on temporary basis based on the interim directions of the apat in VMA No. 16/96 in O. A. No. 7171/95 only and subject to the results of the case in the said O. A. The apat has disposed off the O. A. , in favour of the Prob. Deputy Tahsildars, which was upheld by the Supreme court of India in its orders dated 16-2-2001 in C. A. No. 3055/98 and 3054/98. The list of Tahsildars in existence itself is a conditional one prepared under the shelter of interim orders of the Tribunal in VMA no. 16/96 in O. A. No. 7171/95. When the said O. A. is disposed off in favour of implementation of Rule 4 (e)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document