ORDER :

D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J

Writ Petition No.10205 of 2017 is filed challenging the order in O.A.No.7020 of 2014 and Batch, dated 28.04.2015, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. Writ Petition No.10280 of 2017 is filed challenging the order in O.A.No.7021 of 2014 and Batch, dated 28.01.2015, passed by the Tribunal.

3. Since the issues of fact and law in both these Writ Petitions are one and the same, with the consent of both the learned counsel, W.P.No.10205 of 2017 is taken up for hearing.

4. This Court has heard Sri V. Maheswar Reddy and Sri K. Venugopal Reddy, learned counsels for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents 1 and 2; and Sri K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents.

5. The issue involved in these writ petitions circles around the interpretation of rules of promotion for the writ petitioners. Learned counsel points out that on a wrongful interpretation of Rule 3 of the A.P. Works Accounts Service Special Rules, 1998 (G.O.Ms.No.86, dated 22.05.1998) the Tribunal had given promotion to the respondents and denied the same to the petitioner. It is his contention that the Tribunal wrongfully followed the orders in earlier O.A. and by ignoring the Rules directed the respondents to prepare seniority list.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that realizing the correct legal position the Government had also issued a Memo, dated 21.08.2014, clarifying the position relating to promotion to the post of Divisional Accounts Officer (W) Grade II. Yet the Tribunal ignored the correct interpretation and relied upon earlier orders of the Tribunal and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has no bearing to the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a plain and simple interpretation of the existing rule would make it very clear that the interpretation by the Tribunal is totally incorrect. He relies upon Anil Kumar Gupta and Others v Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others, (2000) 1 SCC 128 and also particularly lays emphasis on the Division Bench judgment reported in K. Rajendra Prasad and Others v State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2020 (3) Andh LD 295. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Memo, dated 21.08.014, sets out the correct position and the Rule 33 of the A.P. Subordinate Service Rules clarified the position correctly.

7. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appears for Respondents 1 and 2 argues in line with what is stated by him in his counter. He points out that the special rules governing the subject of promotions in A.P. Works Accounts Services contained in G.O.Ms.No.86. According to him the appointment to the post of DAO (W), Grade II, shall be made by direct recruitment and also by recruitment by transfer from the categories of Senior Assistants and Superintendents. He further relies upon Note-II which is as follows:

“Note 2:- (a) 50% (fifty per cent) of the substantive vacancies in the Category of Divisional Accounts Officers (Works) Grade-II shall be filled in by direct recruitment.

(b) The vacancies other than those to be filled in by direct recruitment shall be filled in alternatively by the Superintendents of Group-A and Group-B as indicated below:-

Group-A:- Superintendents in the Circles and Divisions of Roads and Buildings, Irrigation, including Major Projects, Public Health and Municipal Engineering and Panchayat Raj Engineering Departments.

Group-B:- Superintendents working in the Accounts organization under the administrative control of Director of Works Accounts.

In case, qualified and suitable Superintendents in any of these two groups are not available, the Senior Assistants in the respective groups, who are qualified, may be considered for appointment to the post of Divisional Accounts Officer Grade-II.

Provided