Reddy Vs. Government of A.P. & Ors  INSC 78 (9 February 1998)
A.P. Misrs K. Venkataswami, J.
9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1998 Present:
Mr. Justice K.Venkataswami Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.P.Misra L.Nageswara Rao, V.Sridhar
Reddy, G.Ramakrishna Prasad, and S.Uday Kumar Sagar, Advs. for the appellant A.Subba
Rao, A.D.N. Rao, D.Prakash Reddy, Ms. D.Bharathi Reddy, Advs. for the
Kumar, Ms. Asha G. Nair, C. Balasubramanian, Y.Subba Rao, Santi Narayana, Advs.
for State of A.P.
J U D
G E M E N T
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
appeals by special leave are directed against the common judgment of the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad dated 13.7.1995 in O.A. Nos. 252,
277, 412, 447 and 783 of 1995. The contesting unofficial respondents in each of
the appeals in this Court were the applicants before the Tribunal. Their common
grievance was against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Government in G.O. Rt.
No. 1881, Revenue (Endowments.I) Department dated 28.11.1994. By the impugned
Government order, the Government of Andhra Pradesh at the instance of the
appellant herein gave him seniority in Executive officers Grade-IV over the
contesting unofficial respondents in these appeals.
Tribunal by the judgment under challenge, without going into the merits of the
case, quashed the impugned G.o. on the short ground that the impugned G.O. was
hit by Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Tribunal
observed as follows:- "The impugned G.o. 1881 dated 28.11.1994 make a
reference to the interim order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 7112/92
dated 2.12.1992 wherein neither the third respondent herein nor V.V. Subbareddy,
who is also referred to in the impugned G.O. figure among the Respondents. In
fact the main contention of the applicants in this O.A. is that for promotion
to grade-I Executive Officer, merit and ability is the criterion under rule
10(1) of A.P. Endowments Executive officers Subordinate Service Rules, and
therefore, he should be given a place above the Respondents therein and the
proceedings dated 27.10.1992 should be set aside. Thus, the main subject matter
in the O.A. No. 7112/92 is the seniority list of Grade-I Executive Officer,
whereas the main theme of the impugned G.O. is seniority in Executive Officers
Grade-IV. Hence it cannot be claimed to be in obedience to that order of the
doubt in addition to the above, the Tribunal also incidentally observed that
the Government was not right in re-opening a matter in 1993 disturbing orders
passed in 1983.
counsel appearing for the appellant, who is common in all these appeals,
submitted that the view of the Tribunal that the impugned Government order was
hit by section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was on a wrong
construction of that Section and even on facts, that conclusion cannot be
sustained. Likewise, he also challenged the finding of the tribunal that by the
impugned Government order, orders passed in 1983 were sought to be disturbed.
counsel appearing for the contesting unofficial respondents in all these
appeals supporting the reasons given by the Tribunal for quashing the impugned
G.O. also submitted that the Government before passing the impugned G.O.
invited objections from the aggrieved parties by issuing Memo No.
99590/Endowments-I/92 dated 25.3.1994 and all the contesting unofficial
respondents sent detailed objections to the memo and the Government without
applying its mind to the objections simply confirmed the view expressed by it
in its Memo dated 25.3.1994. On that ground alone, the order of the Tribunal,
including the directions, ought to be sustained.
find force in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the contesting
unofficial respondents in all these appeals and without going into the
correctness or otherwise of the reasons given by the Tribunal for quashing the
impugned G.O., we are satisfied from a careful reading of the impugned G.O.
that the Government have not applied its mind before rejecting the objections
raised by the contesting unofficial respondents. As a matter of fact, the
objections, raising points both on law and on facts, were dealt with by the
Government in the impugned G.O. by observing as follows:- "In view of the
above position, the Government see no reason to uphold the objections raised by
the affected persons and hereby reject them as untenable." Beyond this,
there was no discussion regarding the objection raised by the contesting unofficial
we find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the contesting
we confirm the judgment and order of the Tribunal challenged in these appeals.
We direct the Government to take further steps in the light of the directions
given by the tribunal within a period of four months and in the meanwhile the
appellant's seniority and promotion shall not be disturbed till the Government
passes orders in the light of the directions given by the Tribunal.
appeals are accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.