S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners herein who are working as Community Health Officers filed Original application No. 6719 of 1994 before A. P. Administrative Tribunal challenging g. O. MS. No. 802, dated 28-12-1981.

( 2 ) THE dispute in this case centres round appointment to the post of Health Inspector which is by way of promotion from the feeder category and by direct recruitment. By reason of G. O. Ms. No. 905, dated 7-11-1974 certain posts are added to the feeder category. G. O. Ms. No. 802, dated 28-12-1981 further amended the relevant rule giving retrospective effect with respect to certain posts which are added to the feeder category and the note inserted therein reads thus: the provisions of this rule shall apply to the following categories with effect from the dates noted against each. 4

( 3 ) THE petitioners herein filed the aforementioned original application inter alia questioning the validity of the said g. O. MS. No. 802, dated 28-12-1981. Some of the beneficiaries of the said Government order viz. , respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were impleaded in a representative capacity. It was included in a batch of 22 original applications. The Tribunal dismissed the original application stating: the applicants in O. A. No. 6719 of 1994 have not impleaded necessary parties and also challenged G. O. Ms. No. 802 which is upheld by the supreme Court, we hold that no relief can be granted as G. O. Ms. No. 802 was not suspended by the Supreme Court. Therefore, O. A. No. 6719 of 1994 is liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) THE said original application, however, was not included in the cause title and no order was passed. Once again the Tribunal passed an order on 29-4-1997 including the original application in the cause title and dismissed the same holding that in the earlier order it was stated that the rules issued in g. O. Ms. No. 802 are valid.

( 5 ) A contention was raised before this court that no party is required to be impleaded when the validity of a rule is challenged in view of the decision of the apex Court in V. P. Srivastava v. State of m. P. A plea was also raised that the validity of the said G. O. Ms. No. 802 has not been upheld by the Supreme Court as was wrongly mentioned by the Tribunal. According to the petitioners, having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in r. N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmaiah regularization of appointment in exercise of executive power cannot be made by the executive if the same is in infraction of a rule made under proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution.

( 6 ) WHEN the matter came up before this court a division bench by an order dated 8-8-1997 passed the following order: this writ petition was filed against the order of the A. P. Administrative tribunal in O. A. No. 6719 of 1994. The tribunal, by a common order dated 19-11-1996, had disposed of 22 cases but in the cause title only 21 case numbers were mentioned. On page 54 of the judgment in paragraph 49, the tribunal has dealt with the merits of o. A. No. 6719 of 1994 and observed: o. A. No. 6719 of 1994 is liable to be dismissed. however, no formal order was pronounced evidently due to a clerical mistake as O. A. No. 6719 of 1994 was not listed for judgment. This mistake was realised when an application was filed by the petitioners and the same was disposed of on 29-4-1997 observing: in the judgment dated 19-11-1996 in para No. 54, the following shall be added as a penultimate sentence. for the reasons stated above, O. A. No. 6719 of 1994 also stands dismissed. sri Manohar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners says that inasmuch as the aforesaid order of dismissal was passed on 29-4-1997, which is subsequent to 18-3-1997 the cut off date as per the judgment of the supreme Court in Chandra Kumar v. Union of India this Court is entitled to exercise the power of judicial review prospectively in respect of matters disposed of by the Tribunals with effect from 18-3-1997 and this,case should not be thrown out on the ground o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document