Samindla Ranga Rao vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

S.B. Sinha, C.J.—Although several contentions have been raised in this application, on a short question, we intend to remit the matter back to the learned Tribunal. The petitioner herein filed the O.A. praying for the following relief:

" ... to call for the records pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.103, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, dt. 5-3-1998 re-allotting the 3rd respondent from Zone-VI to Zone-III and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the Presidential Order and consequently set aside the Memo No.DV/4/24085/94-Zone-III, dated 17-3-1999 issued by the 2nd respondent i.e., Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj Department, Hyderabad, including the name of the 3rd respondent in seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers of Zone-III."

The case has a chequered history. Suffice it to say that at the instance of the unofficial respondents, an O.A. was filed wherein the petitioner herein was not a party and the order passed in favour of the impleaded respondent, Shambabu-3rd respondent herein. O.A. as also the writ petition was questioned by the petitioner herein before the Apex Court by filing an SLP The said SLP was allowed directing the Tribunal to consider the validity of G.O.Ms.No.103, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Est.III) Department, dated 5-3-1998.

The learned Tribunal, however, by reason of the impugned judgment held:

"Thus, viewed from any angle the Applicant herein (S.Ranga Rao) cannot claim seniority over and above the candidates whose services were regularized in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.647, General Administration Department dated 14-9-1979."

Apart from the fact that the counsels agree that the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis the 3rd respondent herein was not in issue, the learned Tribunal decided the same, we notice that Sri N.V.H. Shastri was the author of G.O.Rt.No.202, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, dated 25-2-1994 has since been appointed as Member of the Administrative Tribunal and took part in the proceedings. Having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in BAIDYANATH MAHAFATRA v. STATE OF ORISSA1, we are of the opinion that as there is likelihood of bias, the impugned order of the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained.

We may place on record that Mr. Ratna Reddy appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that having regard to the nature of the grievances raised by the petitioner, he ought to have impleaded all the parties who would be affected by the judgment as parties in the original proceedings. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on DHARWADA MADHAVA RAO v. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, E.G. DISTRICT2. The said objection of Mr. Ratna Reddy, in our opinion, does not survive, having regard to the fact that all the interested parties are now before the learned Tribunal, having got themselves impleaded therein in the proceedings.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the learned Tribunal for consideration of the matter afresh by constituting a Bench in which Mr. N.V.H. Shastri may not be a member. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we would request the learned Tribunal to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of communication of this judgment.

With the aforementioned observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.