T. Meena Kumari, J.
1. The present Writ Petition has been directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 4235 of 2001 dated 30-1-2002.
2. The petitioner herein is the third respondent and the third respondent herein is the applicant in the said O.A.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:
4. The third respondent filed the above OA questioning GO Rt.No. 683, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (A1) Department dated 26-6-2001 in which the first respondent rejected his representation, for revision of seniority in the cadres of the Assistant Professor and the Professor of Pediatric Surgery and also sought a direction to the official respondents to prepare year-wise panels from July, 1983 and to fill up the vacancies of Professor of Pediatric Surgery and to prepare the seniority list in the cadre of the Asst. Professor and Professor of Pediatric Surgery.
5. The petitioner herein passed M.B.B.S. in 1971 and M.S. in General Surgery from Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education in June, 1976 and second Post Graduate degree M. Ch. in pediatric surgery in December, 1979 and he was selected as Civil Assistant Surgeon in the examination held by the APPSC for direct recruitment in the year 1977 and the results were published by the APPSC in the AP Gazette No. 19-C dated 18-5-1978. The third respondent herein is a graduate in Medicine and passed M.S. General Surgery in Banaras Hindu University and M. Ch. in Post Graduate Medical Institute at Chandigarh in 1977 and he was appointed as Assistant Professor in Pediatric Surgery on 26-6-1978 and later his probation was declared on 3-9-1980. The petitioner rank in the merit list was shown at 438 whereas the rank of the third respondent was at 782. The said rankings are the basis for fixation of the seniority in the cadre of Civil Asst. Surgeons/Asst. Professors in the AP Medical and Health Services (APMHS).
6. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was selected, no appointment order has been issued to him and hence he made repeated requests for issuance of the appointment order. Later, he received a communication from, the second respondent in Rc.No. 83500/E60/78 dated 18-7-1979 informing him that he will be given appointment order as and when the Government issues the order and finally an appointment order was issued to him by the second respondent in Rc.No. EEIC/28396/80 dated 1-9-1980 basing on G.O.Ms.No. 1631/ B1. 79-34/M and H dated 25-8-1980 of the first respondent. Later, he joined as Assistant Professor of Pediatric Surgeon, Kurnool Medical College on 24-9-1980 within the joining time and his services along with Dr. Y. Naidumma were regularized by the second respondent and his probation was declared w.e.f 23-9-1982 in the category of Civil Assistant Surgeons in proceedings No. 13731/VICR/C/82 dated 2-3-1983 of the second respondent.
7. The case of the petitioner is that in 1977-78, the APPSC selected nearly 1,400 doctors for the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon/Asst. Professor after a gap of 10 years basing on M.B.,B.S. qualifications and in view of huge number of selections, the appointments were made over a period of two to three years, which continued even after 1980.
8. It is stated that the second respondent issued proceedings in Rc.No. 142186/E.9.B/ 81 dated 5-11-1981 regularizing the services of the CAS/Asst. Professor selected in 1977-78 by APPSC up to the rank of 563 in which his name was shows at serial No. 300 and of Dr.Y. Nayudamma at Sl.No. 373. It is stated that while fixing the inter se seniority, the second respondent has taken into consideration of the rankings assigned by the APPSC but not the date of joining into service.
9. It is stated that in the year 1995, the third respondent filed an objections to the final seniority list. Again in 2000, he made a representation to that effect. As the same were not considered and disposed of, he filed OA No. 5366 of 2000 and the Tribunal disposed of the said OA on 8-9-2000 with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 herein to dispose of his objections within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the said order.
10. On receipt of such order, the first respondent considered his representation and has rightly rejected his claim by issuing GO Rt.No. 683, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (A1) Department dated 26-6-2001 by stating that the petitioner joined duty within the stipulated time after receipt of the appointment order. Questioning the said GO.Rt.No. 683 dated 26-6-2001, the third respondent herein filed OA.No. 4235 of 2001 contenting that he joined earlier to the petitioner, and hence he is entitled to the seniority in the cadre of Asst. Professor and also in the cadre of Professor. However, the petitioner herein vehemently contested the matter before the Tribunal stating that he joined duty within the stipulated time and for the delay on the part of the respondents in issuing appointment order, he cannot be made responsible and that seniority has to be taken into consideration basing on the rankings assigned to the petitioner, the third respondent and others by the APPSC. However, the A.P. Admn. Tribunal without considering all these factors allowed the O.A. by its judgment dated 30-1-2002 by setting aside GO.Rt.No. 683, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (A1) Department dated 26-6-2001 with the following observations:
'In the background of the facts of the case and in view of the above discussion, I hold that the unofficial respondents cannot be considered as senior to the applicant in the cadre of Civil Assistant Surgeon and the consideration of the claims of the applicant for his seniority cannot be rejected on the ground of lapse of 17 years after his initial appointment and further that the unofficial respondent cannot be made a senior to any Civil Assistant Surgeon joined in service before the date of joining of the unofficial respondent i.e., 24-9-1980. The official respondents are directed to regulate the seniority of the applicant and the unofficial respondent as Civil Assistant Surgeon/Assistant Professor Pediatrics in accordance to the orders given above and prepare a seniority list of Assistant Professor of Pediatrics atleast from the panel 1983-84 onwards. Based on such seniority lists of Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, the promotion of the applicant and the unofficial respondent as Professor of Pediatrics is directed to be regulated, according to the rules and instructions of the Government on this subject, within three months from the date of receipt of this order.'
11. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the third respondent.
13. It has been contended by Sri Rathna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner that as no appointment order was issued to the petitioner herein along with other selected candidates, he made representations on 25-6-1979, 27-6-1979 to the Director of Medical Education and Administration, Hyderabad. Later, the second respondent addressed a letter to the said representations of the petitioner in Rc.No. 83500/E6.D/78 dated 18-7-1979 informing that as and when the Government issue the orders, the petitioner would be issued regular appointment orders with a provision to enable him to continue his Post Graduation Course on study leave after actually joining in the Andhra Pradesh Medical and Health Services and signing the CTCs. It is further contended that an appointment order was issued to the petitioner on 1-9-1980 giving 60 days time from the date of dispatch of the orders to the candidate i.e., on or before 31-10-1980, failing which the appointment shall stand cancelled. It has also been contended that the ranking of the petitioner herein was shown at 438/77 and he was posted as Asst. Professor of Pediatric Surgery, Kurnool. It has also been contended that the selections were got published in AP Gazette on 18-5-1978. The provisional seniority list of the Civil Assistant Surgeons from 1968 to 1980 was also prepared and published in which the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 4774 with rank No. 438 whereas the rank of Dr.Y. Naiudamma was shown at serial No. 4838 with rank No. 502 and of the third respondent (applicant in O.A.) at serial No. 5111 with rank No. 782.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that in G.O.Ms.No. 312 M and H dated 21-4-1979 it has been specially stated that the inter se seniority of the Civil Assistant Surgeons including Health Officers would be as per the merit list furnished by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. In the proceedings of the second respondent in Rc.No. 142186/ E9.B/81 dated 5-11-1981, it has been clearly stated that the services of the candidates selected by APPSC during the year 1977-78 has been regularized as mentioned in the appended annex to the said proceedings. In the said appendix the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 330 with seniority No. 438 as assigned by the APPSC List and of Dr. Y. Nayudamma at serial No. 373 with seniority No. 502. In the proceedings of the second respondent dated 2-3-1983 in R.Dis.No. 137371/VICR(c)/82, the probation of the petitioner has been declared w.e.f. 23-9-1982.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that in G.O.Ms.No. 597 Medial and Health (A1) Department dated 1-8-1984, the petitioner was temporarily promoted to the post of Professor of Pediatric Surgery in Class-I, Category 2, Branch-I Teaching Cadre of the A.P. Medical and Health Services in which the name of the Petitioner was shown above the name of Dr. Y. Nayudamma and the name of the third respondent was shown below the name of Dr. Y. Nayudamma.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that even as per G.O.Rt.No. 9, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (A1) Department dated 2-1-1992, the period of probation in the category of Professor of Pediatric Surgery i.e., in Class-I, Category-2 of Teaching of Andhra Pradesh Medical and Health Services has been declared in which the probation of the petitioner and Dr. Y. Nayudamma has been declared from 7-8-1985 and of the third respondent w.e.f. 5-1-1988.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that at no point of time, the third respondent has raised any objection with regard to his seniority and for the first time, he filed his objections to the final seniority list in the year 1995 for the first time claiming the seniority over and above the petitioner and hence the same has to be rejected on the ground of laches. The third respondent made a representation on 27-7-2000 for the first time for inclusion of his name in the final seniority list even though he has filed his objection on 5-12-1985 claiming the seniority over and above others. It has also been contended that since the third respondent has not received any response from respondents 1 and 2, the third respondent filed O.A.No. 5363 of 2000 before the AP Admn. Tribunal and the same was disposed of on 8-9-2000 at the admission stage itself to consider his objections. As the petitioner herein was not made as a party to the said OA, he filed review MA and the said Review MA was closed with an observation that the petitioner to file a representation to the concerned for the grievances if he has got with regard to the said order. In pursuance of the said orders, the first respondent after taking to consideration of all the relevant factors and as the third respondent made a request for revision of his seniority after a lapse of nearly 17 years, has rejected the claim of the third respondent. Hence, there is no illegality or irregularity in the said GO warranting interference by the A.P. Admn. Tribunal. But, the learned Tribunal without considering all these factors has allowed the OA by setting aside GO Rt.No. 683 dated 26-6-2001 of the first respondent. Hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
18. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel Sri Subba Reddy appearing for the third respondent has argued that the petitioner herein is a M. Ch student when he appeared for the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon and to facilitate him to complete his course, the Government did not issue appointment order till he completed the said course. He also contends that respondents 1 and 2 did not put forth any reason before the Tribunal for non-issuance of the appointment order till 1-9-1980 though he was selected in the year 1978. The learned Senior Counsel also argued that as per Rule 6 of the AP Public Service Commission Rules, the section list prepared and published by the Commission shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which the selection list is published in the Notice Board of the Commission or till the publication of the new selection list whichever is earlier. Thus, the learned counsel has argued that by not issuing the appointment order to the petitioner herein till 1-9-1980, the Government has facilitated him for completion of his M. Ch course and after completion of his M.Ch course only he joined on 1-9-1980. The learned Senior counsel also submits that the third respondent has made an objection petition to the provisional seniority list in the year 1995 by putting forth his grievance of his seniority before the concerned authorities and as there was no response, he was forced to approach the AP Admn. Tribunal by filing OA No. 5366 of 2000 and the same was disposed of at the admission stage. But, the first respondent issued GO Rt.No. 683 dated 26-6-2001 without considering his grievances properly and the learned Tribunal after appreciating all the facts set aside the said GO and hence there is no illegality or irregularity in the said judgment warranting interference.
19. The learned Government Pleader submits that the appointment order could not be issued to the petitioner due to administrative reasons and that the third respondent has put forth his grievances only after a period of 17 years with regard to his seniority. It is also contended that he never raised the issue of seniority even after issuance of GO Rt.No. 9 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (A1) Department dated 2-1-1992 in which the probation of the petitioner, Dr. Y. Nayudamma and the third respondent in the cadre of Professors has been declared. The learned Government Pleader also submits that the third respondent did not place any material to support his contention that the Government has issued the appointment orders to the petitioner so as to facilitate him to complete his M. Ch. course.
20. The undisputed facts remain are that the petitioner herein was selected by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in the examination conducted in 1978 and he was placed at rank No. 438 and the third respondent was also selected by the APPSC in the same selection and he was placed at serial No. 782. It is also a fact that the first respondent has issued the appointment order to the petitioner herein on 1-9-1980 and he joined duty within the stipulated time of 60 days. The additional material papers also shows that the petitioner herein was requesting the Government to issue the appointment orders by his application dated 25-6-1979 and 27-6-1979 and the same were replied by the second respondent in Rc.No. 83500/E6.D/78 dated 18-7-1979 informing him to join duty as and when Government issue the orders. However in the said proceedings, no reasons have been mentioned for not issuing the appointment order to the petitioner except stating that they will issue the appointment order as and when the Government issue the orders.
21. It is also an undisputed fact that the selection of candidates in the cadre of Asst. Professors have been made in May, 1978 and rankings have been given as per the merit in that selection.
22. In G.O.Ms.No. 312 M and H (B1) Department dated 21-4-1979, it has been mentioned that the candidates shown in Annexure II to the above GO shall be given regular appointment as Civil Assistant Surgeon and inter se seniority of Civil Assistant Surgeons shall be prepared as per the merit list issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. In the said Annexure, the petitioner herein was shown as senior to the petitioner. It is not the case of the third respondent that he is not aware of the said GO issued on 21-4-1979.
23. In proceedings in Rc.No. 142186/ E9B/81 dated 5-11-1981, and 15-12-1981, the second respondent regularized the services and in those proceedings, respondents 1 and 2 fixed the inter se seniority of the Civil Assistant Surgeons as per the ranking and not by the joining date and the third respondent is aware of the said proceedings. Even after aware of the said proceedings in 1981, he did not make any representation putting forth his grievance. The second respondent in his proceedings in R.Dis.No. 137371/VICR(c)/82 dated 2-3-1983, declared the probation of the petitioner in the cadre of Asst. Professor of Pediatric Surgery on 23-9-1982. It is also to be seen that in G.O.Ms.No. 597 dated 1-8-1984, the petitioner, Dr. Y. Nayudamma and the third respondent were promoted temporarily to the posts of Professor of Padiatric Surgery. In the said GO also, the name of the petitioner was shown above to Dr. Nayudamma and to the third respondent. In G.O.Rt.No. 9, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (A1) Department dated 2-1-1992, the probation in the cadre of Pediatric Surgery have been declared and the probation of the petitioner and Dr. Y. Nayudamma and of the third respondent were declared w.e.f. 7-8-1985; 7-8-1985 and 5-1-1988 respectively. All these proceedings would go to show that the petitioner's name has been mentioned over and above the third respondent and that it is not the case of the third respondent that he is not aware of the above proceedings. It is pertinent to note that the third respondent did not make any representation or objection petition stating that the name of the petitioner should be placed below the name of the third respondent as he joined duty much earlier to the petitioner and he also did not make any protest petition to the seniority list also. For the first time, he made an objection petition in 1995 and he also kept quite till 2000 without taking any steps for disposal of his objection petition. In 2000, he filed O.A.No. 5366 of 2000 seeking a direction to dispose of his representation and the Tribunal has disposed of the said OA at the admission stage directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to dispose of the representation of third respondent. For the first time, he approached the Court of law claiming seniority over the petitioner in 2000 and he simply kept quite from 1978. Thus, the third respondent kept quite for a period of 22 years without approaching the Court of law by putting forth his grievance.
24. The learned Government Pleader submits that the third respondent should have raised the issue of his seniority at the earliest possible time but not after a period of 22 years i.e., from the date of joining into service till the date of filing of O.A.No. 5366 of 2000.
25. As per Rule 6 of the AP Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, the ranking list prepared by the Commission for selection in a direct recruitment shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which the selection list is published on the Notice Board of the Commission or till the publication of the new selection list whichever is earlier.
26. It is to be seen that even though the petitioner herein was selected, the appointment order to the petitioner was issued only on 1-9-1980 for the reasons best known to the official respondents. The contention of the official respondents is that the reason for the delay in issuing the appointment order was due to administrative reasons. It is also to be noted that after receipt of the appointment order, the petitioner joined duty within the stipulated time in the said appointment order. The third respondent did not place any material before this Court to show that the petitioner is the responsible for the delay in issuance of the appointment orders. The petitioner to have his appointment order at an early date, he made representations to the 2nd respondent on 25-6-1979 and 27-6-1979 and to these representations, he received a reply from the second respondent that the appointment orders would be issued on receipt of the Government Orders. It has also to be noted that no material has been placed by the respondents to substantiate his plea that the panel prepared by the Commission is lapsed due to publication of new selection list. In this case, the respondents did not file any material to show that now selection list was published. Except making a bald allegation by the third respondent that the petitioner managed the authorities to enable him to complete his M. Ch. course, he did not place any material before this court to substantiate his contentions.
27. The above facts would go to show that the third respondent is aware of the date of issuance of the appointment order and the proceedings of the second respondent in which the services of the petitioner and the third respondent were regularized in the cadre of Asst. Professors, and the proceedings in which they were temporarily promoted to the post of Professors. For all these proceedings, the third respondent never raised any objections at any point of time.
28. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if an individual aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him he should have approached the court at the earliest possible time and if he did not approach the Court of law aggrieved by the said ranking, it has to be deemed that he has no grievance over assignment of such ranking.
29. The Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Makashi v. I.M. Menon, : [1982]2SCR69 has observed as follows:
'In these circumstances, we consider that the High Court was wrong in overruling the preliminary objection raised by the respondents before it, that the writ petition should be dismissed on the preliminary ground of delay and laches, inasmuch as it seeks to disrupt the vested rights regarding the seniority rank and promotions which had accrued to a large number of respondents during the period of eight years that had intervened between the passing of the impugned Resolution and the institution of the writ petition. We would accordingly hold that the challenge raised by the petitioners against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of March, 22, 1968 ought to have been rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay and laches and the writ petition in so far as it related to the prayer for quashing the said Government Resolution should have been dismissed.'
30. Following the above judgment, the' Apex Court in the case of K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh, AIR 1996 SC 2086 has held as follows:
'Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there should be no sense of uncertainty amongst the Government Servants created by the writ petitions filed after several years. It is essential that any one who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him should approach the Court as early as possible as otherwise in addition to the creation of a sense of insecurity in the minds of the Government Servants there would also be administrative complications and difficulties. A Government Servant who is appointed to any post ordinarily should at least after a period of 3 or 4 years of his appointment be allowed to attend to the duties attached to his post peacefully and without any sense of insecurity.'
31. The Apex Court in the case of B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab, : AIR1999SC1510 it has been held that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position.
32. The Supreme Court in the above said decisions has held that challenging inter se seniority after a long period of 18 years after publications of seniority list deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone.
33. In this case, it has to be observed that it is a clear case where the third respondent has chosen to raise the objections to the said seniority list nearly after a period of 17 years and he has chosen to approach the Tribunal after a period of 22 years. The Tribunal has erred in allowing the OA rejecting the claims of the petitioner herein by holding that the petitioner herein cannot be considered as senior to the applicant i.e., the third respondent herein in the cadre of Civil Assistant Surgeon in spite of such delay.
34. It has also to be seen that by virtue of G.O.Rt.No. 9 dated 2-1-1992, the inter se seniority in the cadre of Professors have become final wherein the probation of the petitioner, Dr. Y. Nayudamma and of the third respondent have been declared in the cadre of Professors w.e.f. 7-8-1985, 7-8-1985 and 5-1-1988 respectively. Even at that time also, there was no protest from the third respondent herein questioning the said seniority list.
35. In view of the fact that the seniority in the cadre of Professors has also become final in 1992 itself, the observations made by the Tribunal holding that the petitioner cannot be considered as senior to the third respondent in the cadre of Civil Assistant Surgeon and the consideration of the claims of the third respondent for his seniority cannot be rejected on the ground of lapses of 17 years after his initial appointment and further that the unofficial respondent cannot be made a senior to any Civil Assistant Surgeon joined in service before the date of joining of the petitioner has no legs to stand.
36. By taking into consideration that the third respondent did not raise any objections either to the provisional seniority list of Civil Assistant Surgeon from 1969 to 1980; or G.O.Ms.No. 312 Medical and Health dated 21-4-1979 wherein inter se seniority of Civil Assistant Surgeons as per the merit list of APPSC has been published; or proceedings of the second respondent in Rc.No. 142186/ E9B/81 dated 5-11-1981 and 15-12-1981 wherein services of the Civil Assistant Surgeons have been regularized showing ranking and inter se seniority; or G.O.Ms.No. 597 dated 1-8-1984 wherein the petitioner and third respondent were promoted as Professor; or G.O.Rt.No. 9 dated 2-1-1992 wherein the probation of the petitioner has been declared in the cadre of Professors at any point of time and also considering the fact that the third respondent has made objection petition in the year 1995 with regard to the inter se seniority after lapse of 17 years and approaching the Court of law after a period of 22 years from the date of joining into service, and following the observations of the Supreme Court in the above said decisions, it has to be held that the Tribunal has erred in setting aside G.O.Rt.No. 683 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (A1) Department dated 26-6-2001.
37. The Supreme Court in the case of Pilla Sitaram Patrudu v. Union of India, : [1996]3SCR870 it has been held that if the appointment was delayed for no fault of an individual, the said individual is entitled to the ranking given in the selection list.
38. As observed above, the third respondent could not able to prove that the petitioner is responsible for the delay for issuance of his appointment order and hence in view of the judgments cited above, the contention of the third respondent that he should be given seniority over and above the petitioner herein has no force.
39. In view of the foregoing discussion, the judgment in OA.No. 4235 of 2001 dated 30-1-2002 is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside.
40. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. However, No order as to costs.