THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.11811 of 2006 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice)

In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

“…issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the Hon’ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal dated 05.06.2006 in O.A.No.4171 of 2005 and quash the same by holding it as illegal, bad and arbitrary and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Joint Director…”

FACTS:-

2. The facts as narrated by the petitioner are that this matter relates to Ground Water Department, the promotional post in question is the post of Joint Director. There are three wings in Ground Water Department namely (a) Hydrology, (b) Hydrogeology and (c) Geophysics. It is canvassed that upto the post of Deputy Director, each wing is like a separate water tight compartment. However, for the promotional post in question i.e., Joint Director, all the Deputy Directors of three wings are eligible. The cadre strength of Joint Director was two. In the year 1987, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was constituted for promotion to the post of Deputy Director. The promotions were made on three different dates. A combined seniority list of Deputy Directors was prepared by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.344, dated 24.10.1994.

3. The said seniority list was called in question before the then existing Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in O.A.No.6974 of 1994. The Tribunal allowed the said OA and issued certain directions regarding preparation of panels for promotion to the post of Joint Director. This order of Tribunal, in absence of challenge, had attained finality.

4. In turn, the panel for the year 2004-05 was prepared by the DPC and was duly approved by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 18.05.1995. As per this GO, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.3 and respondent No.3 was at Sl.No.4. Respondent No.3 filed O.A.No.4171 of 2005 before the Tribunal questioning G.O.Ms.No.54. The main ground taken in the said OA was that respondent No.3 herein is senior to the petitioner herein in the cadre of Deputy Director, although in the initial cadre, the petitioner herein was senior. Another ground taken was that Sl.Nos.1 and 2 in the said panel were retiring before 01.08.2005, the date when vacancy arose and as such they had no right of consideration as against that vacancy which came into being after their retirement.

5. The Tribunal allowed the said OA on 05.06.2006 accepting the contention of respondent No.3 herein. This order of Tribunal is subject matter of challenge in this petition.

Contentions of the petitioner:-

6. Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner belongs to Hydrogeology wing, whereas respondent No.3 is from Hydrology wing. The DPC considered four names, two from Hydrogeology and two from Hydrology. There were no qualified Deputy Directors in Geophysics wing. Thus, DPC acted in consonance with the directions of the Tribunal in O.A.No.6974 of 1994.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court initially suspended the impugned order of the Tribunal passed in O.A.No.4171 of 2005, but on an application made by respondent No.3, modified the same on 28.08.2006 by directing the parties to maintain status-quo. In view of that, the petitioner retired as Joint Director, whereas respondent No.3 got promotion as Director and retired.

8. He further submits that the DPC was convened in view of previous order of the Tribunal passed in O.A.No.6974 of 1994 and no fault can be found in the said order. The Tribunal in the impugned order has committed an error in interfering with the DPC proceedings. He also submits that although almost two decades have passed from the date the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal, the fact