http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: C.NAVANESWARA REDDY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOVERNMENT OF A.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/02/1998

BENCH: K. VENKATASWAMI, A.P. MISRS

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1998 Present:                Hon’ble 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 Respondent. K.Ram 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 The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: K. Venkataswami, J.      These 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.      The 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    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 Tribunal.      No 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.      Learned 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.      Learned 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.      We 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  respondent. Therefore, we  find substance in the argument of the learned counsel   for   the   contesting   unofficial   respondents. Accordingly, we  confirm  the  judgment  and  order  of  the Tribunal  challenged   in  these   appeals.  We  direct  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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. The appeals  are accordingly  dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.