(Per Ramesh Ranganathan, J.)

Maintainability of the writ petition, filed against an order of the Administrative Tribunal by a person· who was not a party to the proceedings, is in issue. The petitioner herein, aggrieved by the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal (A.P.A.T) in OA NO.2278 of 2005 dated 15-7 -2005 filed by the 5th respondent, seeks to have the order set aside in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, though he was not a party to the proceedings in O.A.2278 of 2005.

2. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the 5th respondent was initially promoted on 20-1-1999 as an Assistant Divisional Forest Officer subject to the condition that he should pass the departmental test within a period of two years as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 14-10-1998. He was subsequently reverted for want of vacancy. He was again promoted, by order dated 16-5-2003, on the condition that he should pass the refresher/ training course within a period of two years from the date of promotion. The fifth respondent submitted a representation on 28-4-2005 requesting that the time granted for passing the departmental test be extended. The Director General of Fire Services, by order dated 10-5-2005, held that the earlier order dated 16-5-2003, promoting the fifth respondent, was issued erroneously even though he did not possess the prescribed qualification as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.568 dated 24-11-1992, that despite an opportunity being given to pass the refresher course within a period of 2 years the 5th respondent had failed to acquire the requisite qualifications and what was not specifically provided, in G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 14-10-1998, could not be availed merely on the ground of an erroneous order of promotion issued on 16-5-2003. Pursuant to the order dated 10-5-2005, consequential orders were passed reverting the 5th respondent. Aggrieved thereby the fifth respondent approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal, by order in O.A.2278/05 dated 15-7-2005, set aside the order of reversion passed by the Director General of Fire Services.

3.ln the meanwhile, consequent upon his promotion to the post of Assistant Divisional Fire Officer, the petitioner assumed charge at his new station at Visakhapatnam on 1-7-2005. It is the petitioners case that the 5th respondent did not refer to the proceedings of the Director General of Fire Service, Hyderabad dated 10-5-2005 in O.A.2278 of 2005 filed by him and thought the official respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit, placing the memorandum dated 10-5-2005 on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the order impugned in the O.A. was not a speaking order and that the 5th respondent could not have been reverted for not passing the departmental test. It is the petitioners case that the Tribunal has ignored the Memorandum dated 1 0-5-2005 wherein it was held that the earlier promotion order issued to the petitioner on 16-5-2003 was itself erroneous. Though the petitioner herein assumed charge on 1-7-2005, in view of the orders of the A.P.A.T in O.A.No.2278 of 2005 filed by the 5th respondent, he was again reverted, vide proceedings dated 20-7 -2005. Since the petitioner herein was not a party, to O.A.No.2278 of 2005, he has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the A.P.A.T in O.A.2278 of 2005 dated 15-7-2005.

4. Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the 5th respondent, would submit that a person who was not a party to the proceedings before the A.P.A.T. is not entitled to directly invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the judgment of the Tribunal, and the writ petition filed by him is not maintainable.

Learned counsel would rely on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India1 to submit that the Tribunal continues to act as a Court of the first instance in respect of areas of law for which they have been constituted and it