http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  7938 of 2004

PETITIONER: GOVERNMENT OF A.P. & ANR.

RESPONDENT: Y. SURENDER REDDY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/05/2006

BENCH: Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. The above appeal is directed against the final judgment and  order dated 8.8.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature of  Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 14645 of 2000  whereby the High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the  respondent herein with a direction that the Surplus Manpower  Cell in Finance Department shall consider the case of the writ  petitioner for sponsoring his name to the Transport  Commissioner for being appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicles  Inspector pending any modifications to the Rules, if required.   The High Court also directed that this exercise shall be done  within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of  the said order.   We have heard Mrs. Bharti Reddy, learned counsel for the  appellants and Mr. Vishwanathan, learned counsel for the  respondent.   

Before proceeding to consider the rival submissions, it is  necessary to set out certain background facts of this case:

The respondent herein filed the application under Section  19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 on the file of the  Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad praying for a  direction to the appellant to consider his case for appointment of  Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector.   At that time (and even now  the respondent) is an employee of A.P.S.C.R.I.C.  The respondent  has based his right inter alia in G.O. Ms No. 275 dated 14.12.1995  and on the fact that similarly situated employees have been  considered for appointment as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector.   Further, details are not necessary since the present appeal has  become infructuous, according to the respondent.

The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dismissed the  O.A. No. 3805/2000 as not maintainable sine the Tribunal felt that  the respondent was an employee of a Corporation and as  corporation employee will not come within the purview of the Act.   The respondent had argued that as per Section 15 of the  Administrative Tribunal Act, the Tribunal has got jurisdiction  since the respondent was seeking an appointment to the civil  post under the State Government based inter alia on G.O. Ms. No.  275 dated 14.12.1995.  The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. as not  maintainable.

The respondent filed W.P. No. 14645/2000 before the High  Court of Andhra Pradesh and not only prayed for setting aside  the Tribunal order dated 24.7.2000 in O.A. No. 3805/2000 but also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

prayed for a direction to consider the case of the respondent for  appointment as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector.

The Division Bench of the High Court did not go into the  maintainability of the O.A. and further considered the matter and  passed the impugned order.  The observations are as follows:

"Now, the scenario has been changed.  It is the case  of the petitioner that he was sponsored by Surplus  Manpower Cell in Finance Wing to Transport  Commissioner for being appointed as Assistant Motor  Vehicle Inspector, and consequently he had  undergone training and completed the training.  But  no appointment orders are issued.

Under these circumstances, since the petitioner  was found to be eligible for being appointed as  Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector and also  undergone required training, we are inclined to  dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the  Surplus Manpower Cell in Finance Department shall  consider the case of the petitioner for sponsoring  name of petitioner to the Transport Commissioner for  being appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector  pending any modifications to the Rules, if any  required.  This exercise shall be done within  a period  of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this  order. No costs."

The appellant purportedly in implementation of the  impugned order took up the case of the respondent on the  ground that Act 14 of 1997 of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature  prohibits  the corporation  employees  from being absorbed in  Government.  In fact  the contention of the respondent is that the  Act 14 of 1997 has no application sine it says that the absorption  of public sector undertaking employees is prohibited only on the  ground that the undertaking has become sick or are likely to  become sick.  In this case the contention of the respondent’s is  that A.P.S.C.R.I.C. Is not sick.  The respondent filed a contempt  petition aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2003.

The appellant filed the present special leave petition during  the pendency of the Contempt Petition No. 85/2005 before the  High Court.

       The Contempt Petition filed by the respondent in the High  Court was disposed of with the following observations:

"In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that  Government considered the case of the petitioner and  passed an order on 23.12.2003.  As such, there is no  willful disobedience of the order of this Hon’ble Court.   If the petitioner is aggrieved of order dated  23.12.2003, he can seek redressal from the  appropriate forum".

Thereafter, against the order of 23.12.2003, the respondent  preferred O.A. No. 3200/2004 before the A.P.A.T., Hyderabad and  the same was allowed by the Tribunal with the following  observations:

"In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the  answering respondent has already undergone  training, taking into consideration, the observations

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

made by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No.  14645/2000, the Finance Department i.e. The first  respondent is directed to sponsor the name of the  answering respondent for appointment to the post of  Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector and pass  appropriate orders within a period of three months  from today, after due consideration of the judgment  of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 14645/2000  dated 18.8.2002."

       On 6.12.2004, this Court granted leave in the special leave  petition and directed that there shall be a stay of operation of  impugned judgment.

We have considered the rival submissions. In our view, in  the absence of the challenge to the judgment dated 26.5.2004  passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3200/2004, relief cannot be  granted to the appellants in the present appeal.  The impugned  order dated 8.8.2003 has worked itself out with the passing of the  order dated 23.12.2003 by the State Government.  That order  stands superseded in view of the Tribunal’s order dated 26.5.2004  in O.A. No. 3200 of 2004.  The learned counsel for the appellant  also raised the contention before this Court in regard to the  jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.   Since the said order has not been challenged, we now permit the  appellants, in the interest of justice, to challenge the order of the  Tribunal dated 26.5.2004 in O.A. No. 3200 of 2004 before the High  Court.  This apart, the Special Leave Petition filed by the  appellants is also pending before this Court.   Even though the  order was passed on 26.5.2004, the same could not be challenged  because of the pendency of the appeal in this Court.  Therefore,  the time taken by the appellants to file this appeal has to be  excluded in computing the period of limitation, if any.  The  appellants may file a writ petition questioning the correctness of  the order dated 26.5.2004, if they so desire.  If such a writ petition  is filed within one month from today, the same shall be  entertained and disposed of by the High Court on merits and in  accordance with law.  The respondent has also filed another Writ  Petition No. 8350/2004 in the High Court citing the case of  appointments made in similarly situated persons.  The said writ  petition is also pending consideration by the High Court, which  also shall be disposed of by the High Court as expeditiously as  possible along with the petition that may be  filed by the State of  Andhra Pradesh.  Mr. Vishwanathan, learned Counsel for the  respondent also submits that similarly placed persons have been  accommodated and the respondent’s case is an isolated one and  since the appellants have not challenged the Tribunal’s Order  dated 26.5.2004 in O.A. No. 3200 of 2004 for the last two years,  this Court may not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of  the Constitution of India in favour of the appellants.  We are not  able to countenance the respondent’s submissions.  The  statement of Mr. Vishwanathan is disputed by Mrs. Bharati  Reddy, learned counsel for the State.  If similarly placed persons  have already been accommodated, the State may consider the  case of the respondent in a sympathetic manner and pass  appropriate orders accordingly.

We have already stated the reasons as to why the writ  petition could not be filed by the State challenging the order of  the Tribunal.  In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing  paragraph, we permit the State to file the writ petition before the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

High Court.          The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly.  No order as to  costs.