SATYA BRATA SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS petition raises an interesting question as regards interpretation of Order XXIII, Rule 1 cpc vis-a-vis the power of the administrative Tribunal to entertain an application under Section 19 of the administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

( 2 ) THE petitioner before us was the original Applicant before the learned tribunal in OA No. 3381 of 2000. In his application under Section 19 of the administrative Tribunals Act, he prayed the tribunal to set aside the. Memo No. 6582/ c4/2000, dated 26-5-2000 and Memo no. 6520/c4/2000 dated 31-5-2000 issued by the second respondent herein as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to recast the seniority by treating the applicant as senior to the unofficial respondents therein.

( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, the respondents 3 to 5 herein were placed at a higher position than the petitioner in the seniority list which was questioned before the learned Tribunal and upon a prayer made by the petitioner herein an interim order was passed by the learned Tribunal on 17-7-2000 which is to the following effect:"in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the foregoing discussion, pending further examination of the matter, the respondents are directed to examine the representation of the applicant dated 23-3-2000 and consider his objections as also the objections raised by similarly situated persons in regard to the seniority in the cadre of RTOs and pass appropriate orders thereon. We further direct that based on the orders to be passed on the representation dated 23-2-2000 the respondents are directed to make appropriate corrections in the seniority list of Deputy Transport commissioners, before effecting promotions to the next higher category of Joint Transport Commissioner".

( 4 ) AS against the said order, a writ petition being WP No. 15794 of 2000 was filed by the third respondent herein and this court in modification of the order passed by the learned Tribunal directed:"without going into the controversy raised in this writ petition, we direct the tribunal to dispose of OA No. 3381 of 2000 filed by the 4th respondent herein as expeditiously as possible. However, we modify the interim order dated 17-7-2000 passed by the Tribunal directing the official respondents to examine the objections raised by the petitioner herein through his representation dated 23-3-2000 and take appropriate decision within a reasonable period. We are of the view that this controversy has to be resolved and therefore, we direct the official respondents to decide the representation filed by the 4th respondent herein objecting to the combined seniority list of RTOs dated 26-5-2000 and the provisional seniority list of Deputy transport Commissioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We are of the further view that pending the Tribunal taking final decision, the proposed action of the official respondents contemplating to make further promotions to various categories could be proceeded with, however, such promotions would be subject to the result in OA No. 3381 of 2000 that would be disposed of by the Tribunal. "pursuant to or in furtherance of the said interim order passed by the Tribunal, as also the orders passed by this Court, the government of Andhra Pradesh issued G. O. Ms. No. 14, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr. T) Department, 29-1-2001 inter alia directing:"the Government after careful examination of all representations in accordance with the rules of APS and SS rules, 1996 and the instructions issued in circular memo No. 16/ser-A/93-39 dated 21-04-1999, hereby fix the inter- se-seniority of the Regional Transport officers as indicated in the Annexure to this order, subject to the result of oa No. 3381 of 2000 filed by Sri M. Radhakrishna Murthy, in A. P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Transport Commissioner shall take further action i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document