(Per Ghulam Mohammed J.)

Since these two Writ Petitions arise out of an order dated 24.3.2006 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in OANo.1014 of 2005, they were heard together and are being disposed by this Common Order.

2. O.A.No.1 014 of 2005 was filed by one K. Ashok Kumar (Respondent No.1 herein), who is working as Town Planning Assistant in the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH), rejecting his claim to place him at S.No.1 of the select list of Town Planning Assistants dated 21.12.1981 by the Government in their Memo.No.143555/F11 2003-2 MA, dated 19.9.2003, and the consequential Memo.No.5820/F1/2005-4, dated 22.11 .2005. By the orders impugned, the Tribunal set aside both the Memos and remanded the matter to the Government for passing fresh orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, keeping in view the directions issued therein, and, pending passing of the orders, directed not to make any promotions to the higher posts from the category of Town Planning Assistant/Town Planning Supervisor.

3. Aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal, while W.P.No.8366 of 2006 is filed by the State and the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, W.P.No.19905 of 2006 is filed by one S.A. Sami, Town Planning Supervisor, MCH, who is not a party to OANo.1 014 of 2005, after seeking leave of the Court, as he is likely to be affected by the order of the Tribunal. He also got himself impleaded as Respondent No.2 in W.P.No.8366 of 2006 as he will be affected by the orders passed by this Court in WVMP.No.1213 of 2006 in W.P.M.P. No.10696 of 2006 in W.P.No.8366 of 2006, wherein the interim order staying the operation of the impugned order of the Tribunal was made absolute.

4. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.8366 of 2006.

5. The facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions, in nutshell, may be noted: The 151 respondent - Sri K. Ashok Kumar and the 2 respondent SA Sami (petitioner in W.P.No.19905 of 2006) were appointed as Town Planning Supervisor/Town Planning Assistants in MCH by Proceedings of the Special Officer, MCH in No.817/G1/GB/7981/476 dated 21.12.1981. In the said proceedings, which were issued as per roster, by following Rule 33(b) of A.P. State and subordinate Service Rules (for short 'the Rules'), respondents 1 and 2 were shown at S.Nos.9 and 8 respectively. One M. Nageshwar, who was placed at S.No.1 of the select list appointed under BC-A category, did not join service. 151 respondent reported to duty on 24.12.1981 and the 2nd respondent reported to duty on 26.12.1981. In the provisional seniority list issued by the Chief City Planner (Town Planning Section), Hyderabad in circular Memo.No.612/TPS/ HO/MCH/95 dated 18-2/3-1995, the 151 respondent was shown at S.No.31 and the 2nd respondent was shown at S.No.28 and objections were called for. Again another provisional seniority list was issued by the Commissioner, MCH in Circular No.1700/TP/ OPM /99-350 dated 9.10.1999, wherein the 15t respondent was shown at S.No.10 and the 2nd respondent was shown at S.No.13, changing the date of joining in respect of the 151 respondent from 3.1.1982 to 24.12.1981. After considering the objections, a final seniority list of Town Planning Assistants/Town Planning Supervisors was issued by the Commissioner in circular No.1700/TP/OP11/2005-508 dated 12.4.2000 wherein the name of the 151 respondent was shown at S.No.14 and that of the 2 respondent at S.No.11.

6. Thereafter, it appears that the ; 51 respondent made a representation dated 18.8.2003 stating that in view of his getting highest marks, he should be placed against the O.C. vacancy, and though he belongs to BC-A category, but was shown at S.No.9 in the proceedings dated 21.12.1981 and that since M. Nageshwar who also belongs to BC-A category and placed at S.No.1 of the select list did not join duty, he is entitled to be placed at S.No.1 in the place of M. Nageshwar. His further