This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order, dated 9.1.2003 in O.A.No.6899 of 2001 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal ( for short 'the Tribunal') by virtue of which the Tribunal has directed to review the promotions of respondent No.1 and the petitioner as Senior Assistant as per their relevant seniority and eligibility according to Rules and regulate the consequential promotions as Superintendents accordingly.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant on 10.5.1986 in the Department of Technical Education and then he passed the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I in the month of November,1988 and he is eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. As per the General Rule 4 (ii) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Rules, 1962, a panel was prepared consisting of all the eligible candidates for the year 1989-90 including his name, for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. The name of the first respondent was not included in the panel prepared for the year 1989-90, as he could not pass the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I, which is a pre-requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. As there were vacancies which had arisen on 10.5.1990, petitioner's name was considered for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and, accordingly, he was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant by orders of the second respondent dated 12.09.1990 and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent vide proceedings of the second respondent dated 25.9.2001. The petitioner's promotion to the post of Senior Assistant was not challenged by the first respondent at any point of time and waited till he got his promotion to the post of Superintendent and after a lapse of considerable period, the first respondent filed O.A. No. 6899 of 2001 before the Tribunal challenging the proceedings dated 25.09.2001. The relief sought for by the first respondent is very ambiguous, as he is not sure in which post his seniority to be fixed. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent has not challenged his promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in O.A.No.6899 of 2001, but he challenged the proceedings dated 25.09.2001 whereunder he was promoted to the post of Superintendent. Though the first respondent has not challenged his promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, the Tribunal has erroneously directed the official respondents to review the promotions of the petitioner and the first respondent in the category of Senior Assistant and regulate the consequential promotions. Even though, the claim of the first respondent about the seniority in the category of Senior Assistant is barred by limitation as per Section 21 (i)(a) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the Tribunal has erroneously entertained the O.A. The presumption of the Tribunal that no panel is required to be prepared for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant is contrary to the General Rule 4 (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962. The petitioner's name was included in the panel period from 1.11.1989 to 30.4.1990 and also panel period from 1.5.1990 to 31.8.1990 for the post of Senior Assistant, but due to administrative delay, he was promoted by order dated 12.9.1990 and in fact his promotion has to be preponed to the above said panel period as the vacancies of Senior Assistant post were available during the said panel period and he was fully qualified to hold the post. Therefore, the impugned order dated 9.1.2003 passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set-aside.

3. The first respondent filed his counter stating that he was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Department of Technical Education on 11.8.1982 and subsequently, he passed Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I in June,1990 and he was promoted as Senior Assistant vide proceedings dated 1.7.1991 and he joined as Seni