(Per Goda Raghuram, J.)

The writ petitions are directed against the common order of the AP Administrative Tribunal ('The Tribunal') dated 31.01.2011 in two OAs 2439 and 2436 of 2007. In OA No.2436/07 the applicant imp-leaded four respondents; the State of AP. represented by the Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Commissioner of Industries. AP., Mr. B. Suresh Babu and Mr. R. Madhusudhana Rao; and in OA No.2439/2007 filed by the same applicant there were three non-official respondents imp-leaded - Mr. B. Suresh Babu, Mr. Ch. Rama Rao and Mr. K. Prasada Rao, apart from the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Commissioner of Industries, AP.

2. In OA No. 2436/07 the validity of G.O.Ms. No. 90 dated 24.4.2007 was challenged and a direction sought (to the official respondents) to prepare the seniority list of Joint Directors (of Industries) only after conducting a review DPC by reviewing promotions earlier made. In OA No. 2439/07 a declaration was sought, that the action of the official respondents in not considering the applicant for promotion as Addl. Director of Industries while preferring respondents 3 and 4 there for (who are facing disciplinary chargers), is illegal and discriminatory; and for a direction to the official respondents to promote him as Addl. Director of Industries while excluding the non-official respondents from t!1e zone of consideration for promotion; as per his eligibility, suitability and in accordance with the Rules.

3. The two applications were heard together and a common order passed by the Tribunal wherefrom the writ petitions arise.

4. W.P. No. 2614/11 is filed by R Madhusudhana Rao, the 4th respondent in OA No.2436/07, against the order of the Tribunal therein. W.P. Nos. 15362/11 and 15666/11 are by the State against the order of the Tribunal in OA Nos.2439/07 and 2436/07, respectively. W.P. Nos 31007 and 32227 of 2011 are by Mr. B. Suresh Babu, the 3rd respondent in OA Nos. 2436 and 2439 of 2007 against the common order of the Tribunal, in the respective OAs. The applicant is a respondent in all the writ petitions.

5. Heard Dr. Lakshmi Narasimha for the petitioner (Sri R Madhusudhana Rao) in W.P. No. 2614/11; the learned Government Pleader for Industries & Commerce, for the State; and Mr. M. Surender Rao, the learned counsel for the same petitioner (Sri B. Suresh Babu), in W.P. Nos. 31007 and 32227 of 2011; and Sri P. Bala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the applicant Sri H. Shivaram.

6. The applicant an ST candidate initially entered service as Supervisor in the Industries Department in 1981. He was thereafter promoted as Asst. Director in 1998 (sic. 1988), as Dy. Director w.e.f. 27.9.1994 and Joint Director on 14.8.2003. R. Madhusudhana Rao and B. Suresh Babu are directly recruited Asst. Director of Industries and were promoted to higher categories of Deputy Director, Joint Director and as Addl. Director as well. The post of Assistant Director is a multi-zonal post. There are two multi-zones in the State - I &II.

7. While the non-official respondents in OAs had all been promoted to the higher post of Addl. Director of Industries, the applicant was not so promoted. The interse seniority in the category of Dy. Director and Joint Director and consequently the inter se entitlement to promotion to the next higher category of Addl. Director, is the apparent bone of contention between the applicant and the non-official respondents. The litigation as usual appears to be the product of ad hoc and casual treatment of establishment issues by the State and other official agencies, accentuated by interminable litigation.

8. It is the common refrain by all parties to this lis, including the Government that seniority lists in the category of Asst. Director of Industries (separately for multi zones I and II) were issued in G.O. Ms. No.180, dated 11.6.2003 and the inter se seniority in this category has become final and has not been questioned by anybody, as yet at any rate.

9. In G.O.Ms. No. 180, M