iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of A.P. Rep. by Its Principal Secretary to Government and Cip, Industries and Commerce Department and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - , the 3rd respondent had sought interim suspension of the final seniority list as well as the proceedings of the rejection dated 23.08.2008.vide the impugned order dated 23.07.2009,at the stage of admission, the tribunal passed an ex parte order suspending the final seniority list dated 18.07.2009 and also gave a positive direction, directing the official respondents to effect ad hoc promotions to the cadre of deputy director by following rule 33(a) of a. we are also satisfied that interference with the impugned order of the tribunal is warranted in the present case, as allowing the said interim order to remain would result in incalculable repercussions and public mischief, apart from multifarious litigations. the assignment of the said position to the writ petitioner as well as the respective position to the 3rd respondent vide provisional seniority list multi zone ii, communicated in proceedings dated 13.02.2007stood confirmed and the objections of the 3rd respondent are rejected by a reasoned order, as early as on 23.08.2008itself. 15. the 1st respondent government has failed to realize that preparing one more provisional and final seniority list by adopting a different criteria and making promotions based thereon would lead to innumerable further litigations, as several other employees who may not get promotion would invariably move the courts and tribunal for relief, which will again be subject to interim orders by the tribunal and further orders by this court. so filed against the final seniority list, no case can be said to have been made out to pass an interim order disrupting the seniority list itself, and at best the only relief which applicant could have had was that any promotion would be subject to the result of the o.ordervilas v. afzulpurkar, j.1. by our order dated 03.08.2009, while issuing notice before admission, we have passed a reasoned interim order, granting interim suspension. the said order is as follows:notice before admission.learned government pleader takes notices for respondents 1 and 2.issue notice to respondent no. 3 returnable in ten days. learned counsel for the petitioner shall also takes notice for r-3 by r.p.a.d. and file proof of service.it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner figured above the 3rd respondent in the provisional seniority list of multi zone-ll issued by the commissioner of industries vide memo dated 13.02.2007 calling for objections from the affected persons. it is stated that the 3rd respondent filed her objections on 02.03.2007 and the said objections were considered and rejected by a reasoned order vide memo no. 22/2/2008/260, dated 23.08.2008 by the 2nd respondent. the said memo was not questioned by the 3rd respondent for about one year. after issuing the proceedings communicating final seniority list vide proceedings dated 18.07.2009, the 3rd respondent questioned the same before the a.p. administrative tribunal in o.a. no. 8601 of 2009 and the tribunal, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and other affected persons, suspended the entire final seniority list. it is stated that the petitioner is due to get promotion as deputy director from the post of assistant director and he is also going to retire within few months.having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the tribunal ought not to have granted an ex parte suspension order, more so, when the objection was rejected a year back and the 3rd respondent has not questioned same.in this view of the matter, there shall be an interim suspension as prayed for.2. respondent no. 3 has now filed wvmp. no. 3155/2009 seeking vacation of the said interim order. the official respondents through the learned government pleader, services-i, have filed a counter affidavit together with documents.3. we have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, learned government pleader, appearing for respondents nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel, appearing for the 3rd respondent, and with the consent of all the learned counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of.4. the subject matter of the dispute relates to the seniority list of assistant director of industries, category-iv in multi zone-ll in the industries department, government of andhra pradesh. the said final seniority list appended to the proceedings of the commissioner of industries in rc. no. 22/2/2007/132/132/fd, dated 18.07.2009 was challenged by the 3rd respondent before the andhra pradesh administrative tribunal, hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal'). prior to the said final seniority list, the provisional seniority list was communicated to the parties by proceedings dated 13.02.2007.the same was questioned by the 3rd respondent in o.a. 1773/2008 before the tribunal. by order of the tribunal dated 03.03.2008,the o.a.1773/2008 was disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent herein to pass a speaking order against the objections filed by the 3rd respondent herein with respect to the said provisional seniority list. in pursuance of the said directions, the 2nd respondent herein had considered the objections and by memo no. 22/2/2008/260 dated 23.08.2008 rejected her claim and it was reiterated that her position shown at serial no. 13 of the provisional seniority list is in accordance with rules, and the said memo was also questioned by the 3rd respondent together with the final seniority list in the present o.a. 8601/2009 before the tribunal.5. while seeking relief in the said o.a., the 3rd respondent had sought interim suspension of the final seniority list as well as the proceedings of the rejection dated 23.08.2008.vide the impugned order dated 23.07.2009,at the stage of admission, the tribunal passed an ex parte order suspending the final seniority list dated 18.07.2009 and also gave a positive direction, directing the official respondents to effect ad hoc promotions to the cadre of deputy director by following rule 33(a) of a.p. state and subordinate service rules, by only taking the length of service in the cadre of assistant director as a criteria. the said order was questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition, and as mentioned above, by our reasoned order, the said order of the tribunal was suspended.6. while admitting this writ petition and passing interim orders, we had kept in mind the ratio of decision of a division bench of this court in r. manjula v. principal secretary to govt. rev.(services.1) department : 2002 (1) alt 523 : 2003 (3) ald 648 (d.b.), reference to which is mentioned in detail in the following paragraphs. we are also satisfied that interference with the impugned order of the tribunal is warranted in the present case, as allowing the said interim order to remain would result in incalculable repercussions and public mischief, apart from multifarious litigations. facts, circumstances and reasons in support of our order are mentioned in the following paragraphs.7. the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent's objection against the provisional seniority list stood rejected as early as on 23.08.2008 and that she had not questioned the same and had not taken the proceedings against the said order. further, after about a year, the final seniority list was communicated under proceedings dated 18.07.2009. the tribunal under the impugned order, has not suspended the order of rejection of the objections of the 3rd respondent dated 23.08.2008, but has only suspended the final seniority list. he further submits that giving a positive direction, apart from suspension of the final seniority list, would lead to further complication by altering the seniority list and following altogether a different criteria for effecting the promotions.8. the learned government pleader filed a counter supporting the impugned proceedings before the tribunal on the ground that the 3rd respondent's claim and objection to the provisional seniority list was rejected under a reasoned order dated 23.08.2008 in compliance with the directions of the tribunal in o.a. 1773/2008. he further submits that the 3rd respondent has neither filed any departmental appeal nor approached the tribunal against the said order. thus, the final seniority list, thereafter issued, was consequential proceedings to the order of rejection of the objections of the 3rd respondent dated 23.08.2008.9. mr. p.v. krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent contends and supports the interim order of the tribunal, on the ground that there is absolutely no basis for preparation of provisional and final seniority lists. according to the learned counsel, the date of actual promotion and the date of promotion assigned in seniority list, so far as 3rd respondent is concerned, is totally without any basis. he also submits that the authorities have acted in a secretive manner and the final seniority list was not communicated and released and at the same time the promotions were sought to be made based on the said list. thereupon, the 3rd respondent has approached the tribunal by way of a lunch motion and filed the present o.a. and the tribunal has rightly passed the impugned interim order. the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has filed additional material papers and made several submissions with regard to the merits of the seniority list and the relative position which ought to be assigned to the 3rd respondent instead of one shown in the provisional and final seniority list.10. we have considered the submissions, and in our view, the substantial contentions of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent are all with respect to the matters relating to the merits of the o.a. itself, and since the o.a. filed by the 3rd respondent is pending before the tribunal, any adjudication of issues involved in the said o.a. by this court, at this interlocutory stage, would not be justified. in the present writ petition, we are only concerned with the justification and legality with regard to ex parte interim orders passed by the tribunal which are impugned herein. we shall, therefore, deal with the aspect concerning the said impugned order alone and rest of the matters, so far as the merits are concerned, shall be agitated by both parties appropriately before the tribunal in o.a.11. it cannot be denied that as per the directions of the tribunal earlier in o.a. 1773/2008, the commissioner of industries has considered the objections of the 3rd respondent and by a reasoned order dated 23.08.2008 rejected the said objections and the principal ground on which the learned commissioner has relied upon was that though the 3rd respondent was promoted on 15.09.2003 the said promotion was only temporary and the vacancy so far as she is concerned came up only on 19.08.2006, and accordingly, her date of regular promotion is assigned as 19.08.2006. the said action of the learned commissioner in finalizing the provisional seniority list and final seniority list is justified by the government by filing a counter affidavit before this court.12. according to the averments in the said counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents nos. 1 and 2, the post of assistant director of industries is governed by special rules entitled 'andhra pradesh industries service rules' notified vide g.o.ms. no. 188 industries and commerce (ie) dated 29.04.1993, and if the post is filled up by direct recruitment, by appointment by transfer of industrial promotion officer (ipo)(category to which the 3rd respondent belongs) and by appointment of transfer of superintendents (category to which the writ petitioner belongs). note-2 appended to rule 3 prescribes rotation of vacancies to be filled by various methods, and while as per the rotation policy, in a cycle of six vacancies every third vacancy is to be filled with superintendents/csr (zone)/head office. accordingly, the promotion of the petitioner was considered in the dpc held on 17.06.2006against the third vacancy meant for the superintendent in the second cycle in a 6 point cycle as per the special rules and a vacancy is being available as on 07.07.2005 and the same date is assigned to him as shown in provisional and final seniority list. the assignment of the said position to the writ petitioner as well as the respective position to the 3rd respondent vide provisional seniority list multi zone ii, communicated in proceedings dated 13.02.2007stood confirmed and the objections of the 3rd respondent are rejected by a reasoned order, as early as on 23.08.2008itself.13. the petitioner figures in the final seniority list at serial no. 11 whereas one james figures at serial no. 12 and 3rd respondent figures at serial no. 13. we have also noticed that the objections to the provisional seniority list were filed by james who is at si. no. 12 and 3rd respondent who is at si. no. 13, and while the objections of both of them were rejected by a reasoned order, as above, only 3rd respondent has approached the tribunal. it is also to be noticed that respondents nos. 1 and 2 assert in their counter affidavit that there is no deviation of rules and no injustice has been done to the 3rd respondent in assigning the seniority, as per the final seniority list impugned before the tribunal. it is also mentioned that on account of the interim suspension of the final seniority list, the 12 vacancies in the promotional posts are held up hampering the functioning in the department.14. we are also surprised to find that though the aforesaid counter affidavit is filed by the official respondents in this writ petition, supporting the final seniority list, impugned before the tribunal, based on the interim orders of the tribunal, the 1st respondent/government has readily issued a memo no. 10361/ie/a1/2009-1 dated 30.07.2009 whereby the government pleader for industries before the tribunal was requested to take a long adjournment for filing counter before the tribunal and simultaneously the commissioner of industries was directed to prepare the provisional seniority list by taking the length of service in the cadre of the assistant director of industries as a criteria by following the rule 33(a) of a.p. state and subordinate service rules. the commissioner also further directed to invite objections to the provisional seniority list prepared on the basis and issued a final seniority list thereafter. the aforesaid memo issued by the government appears to be only to implement the impugned directions of the tribunal, as called upon, as represented by the 3rd respondent through her counsel.15. the 1st respondent government has failed to realize that preparing one more provisional and final seniority list by adopting a different criteria and making promotions based thereon would lead to innumerable further litigations, as several other employees who may not get promotion would invariably move the courts and tribunal for relief, which will again be subject to interim orders by the tribunal and further orders by this court. further, the impugned provisional and final seniority list which was promulgated by the government, according to them, was prepared by applying the correct rule position and also by taking into consideration the special rules and rotation of cycles. in such a case, therefore, instead of supporting the said action, adopting entirely a different criteria for preparing one more list and inviting objections to proposed promotions would certainly lead to two different sets of seniority lists resulting in uncalled for and unavoidable litigation. since this court passed an interim order on 03.08.2009 suspending the impugned orders of the tribunal, perhaps the proceedings in furtherance of the government memo dated 30.07.2009 did not proceed further.16. so far as the impugned order of the tribunal is concerned, we are of the view that the final seniority list was prepared after duly considering the objections, the whatever grounds the petitioner had urged in the o.a. were already answered by the government while rejecting the objections and in such an event, in the o.a. so filed against the final seniority list, no case can be said to have been made out to pass an interim order disrupting the seniority list itself, and at best the only relief which applicant could have had was that any promotion would be subject to the result of the o.a. the operation of the seniority list therefore did not warrant any stay. in the present case not only the final seniority list was suspended but further positive direction was given by the tribunal to follow altogether different criteria for the purpose of preparation of seniority list and effecting promotions. in our view, therefore, such exercise was completely unwarranted and would have certainly led to innumerable litigation and further interim orders. thereby, neither the present impugned seniority list nor the modified seniority list would have been operated, resulting in complete stagnation of promotional process. in our view, the balance of convenience is not in favour of the 3rd respondent/applicant, and in any case the facts and circumstances of the case did not warrant an ex parte interim order of this nature.17. a division bench of this court, to which one of us {justice v. eswaraiah} is party, in a considered judgment in r. manjula v. principal secretary to govt. rev.(services.i) department, mentioned supra, have considered and held as follows:33. in the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india would not normally interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the tribunal. grant of an interlocutory order or refusal thereof is within the discretion of the tribunal. this court would not interfere with such discretion exercised by the tribunal with regard to the interlocutory orders unless it is established that passing of such interlocutory order or refusal thereof had resulted in an irreversible situation resulting in manifest injustice. it would not be appropriate for this court to entertain any writ petition only for the purpose of granting an interim order during the pendency of the main proceedings before the tribunal. however, it would be entirely a different matter if the discretion exercised by the tribunal in the matter of granting interim reliefs results in incalculable repercussions and public mischief. in such cases where denial of interim orders may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable injury or shake a citizens faith in the judicial process, it is not only the power but the duty of the court to interfere and grant appropriate relief accordingly. suffice it to observe, interference of this court with the exercise of discretion by the tribunal at interlocutory stage is not a matter of course.34. the tribunal in the instant cases having heard the matters at the admission stage in exercise of its discretion thought it fit to admit the original applications filed by the petitioners and accordingly directed notices requiring the respondents to appear in the matter. the tribunal in its discretion thought it fit not to stall and interdict further promotions of eligible persons to the posts of deputy collectors. the order, in our considered opinion, had not resulted in any irreversible situation. the tribunal is entitled to pass appropriate orders after hearing all the parties to the proceedings.18. keeping in view the aforesaid principles, balance of convenience and prima facie case, we are of the view that even if 3rd respondent succeeds in o.a. and in the meanwhile the seniority list impugned in the o.a. is operated, she will be entitled to be restored with all the benefits of promotional post, and on the contrary, in case the seniority list is stayed or suspended and a different criteria is directed to be adopted for preparing a fresh seniority list, and based on that if further promotions are ordered, it will certainly lead to multifarious litigations.19. the impugned order of the tribunal, is therefore, not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and accordingly modified by directing that any promotions in pursuance of the impugned seniority list, shall be subject to the result of the o.a. the writ petition is allowed accordingly.20. we request the tribunal to hear and dispose of the o.a. as expeditiously as possible, on preferential basis. if no counter affidavits are filed by the respondents before the tribunal so far, they are granted two weeks time from today for filing counters.

Judgment:
ORDER

Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.

1. By our order dated 03.08.2009, while issuing notice before admission, we have passed a reasoned interim order, granting interim suspension. The said order is as follows:

Notice before admission.

Learned Government Pleader takes notices for respondents 1 and 2.

Issue notice to respondent No. 3 returnable in ten days. Learned Counsel for the petitioner shall also takes notice for R-3 by R.P.A.D. and file proof of service.

It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner figured above the 3rd respondent in the provisional seniority list of Multi Zone-ll issued by the Commissioner of Industries vide Memo dated 13.02.2007 calling for objections from the affected persons. It is stated that the 3rd respondent filed her objections on 02.03.2007 and the said objections were considered and rejected by a reasoned order vide Memo No. 22/2/2008/260, dated 23.08.2008 by the 2nd respondent. The said memo was not questioned by the 3rd respondent for about one year. After issuing the proceedings communicating final seniority list vide proceedings dated 18.07.2009, the 3rd respondent questioned the same before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 8601 of 2009 and the Tribunal, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and other affected persons, suspended the entire final seniority list. It is stated that the petitioner is due to get promotion as Deputy Director from the post of Assistant Director and he is also going to retire within few months.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought not to have granted an ex parte suspension order, more so, when the objection was rejected a year back and the 3rd respondent has not questioned same.

In this view of the matter, there shall be an interim suspension as prayed for.

2. Respondent No. 3 has now filed WVMP. No. 3155/2009 seeking vacation of the said interim order. The official respondents through the learned Government Pleader, Services-I, have filed a counter affidavit together with documents.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, learned Government Pleader, appearing for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel, appearing for the 3rd respondent, and with the consent of all the learned Counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of.

4. The subject matter of the dispute relates to the seniority list of Assistant Director of Industries, Category-IV in Multi Zone-ll in the Industries Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The said final seniority list appended to the proceedings of the Commissioner of Industries in Rc. No. 22/2/2007/132/132/FD, dated 18.07.2009 was challenged by the 3rd respondent before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). Prior to the said final seniority list, the provisional seniority list was communicated to the parties by proceedings dated 13.02.2007.The same was questioned by the 3rd respondent in O.A. 1773/2008 before the Tribunal. By order of the Tribunal dated 03.03.2008,the O.A.1773/2008 was disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent herein to pass a speaking order against the objections filed by the 3rd respondent herein with respect to the said provisional seniority list. In pursuance of the said directions, the 2nd respondent herein had considered the objections and by Memo No. 22/2/2008/260 dated 23.08.2008 rejected her claim and it was reiterated that her position shown at Serial No. 13 of the provisional seniority list is in accordance with rules, and the said Memo was also questioned by the 3rd respondent together with the final seniority list in the present O.A. 8601/2009 before the Tribunal.

5. While seeking relief in the said O.A., the 3rd respondent had sought interim suspension of the final seniority list as well as the proceedings of the rejection dated 23.08.2008.Vide the impugned order dated 23.07.2009,at the stage of admission, the Tribunal passed an ex parte order suspending the final seniority list dated 18.07.2009 and also gave a positive direction, directing the official respondents to effect ad hoc promotions to the cadre of Deputy Director by following Rule 33(a) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, by only taking the length of service in the cadre of Assistant Director as a criteria. The said order was questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition, and as mentioned above, by our reasoned order, the said order of the Tribunal was suspended.

6. While admitting this writ petition and passing interim orders, we had kept in mind the ratio of decision of a Division Bench of this Court in R. Manjula v. Principal Secretary to Govt. Rev.(Services.1) Department : 2002 (1) ALT 523 : 2003 (3) ALD 648 (D.B.), reference to which is mentioned in detail in the following paragraphs. We are also satisfied that interference with the impugned order of the Tribunal is warranted in the present case, as allowing the said interim order to remain would result in incalculable repercussions and public mischief, apart from multifarious litigations. Facts, circumstances and reasons in support of our order are mentioned in the following paragraphs.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent's objection against the provisional seniority list stood rejected as early as on 23.08.2008 and that she had not questioned the same and had not taken the proceedings against the said order. Further, after about a year, the final seniority list was communicated under proceedings dated 18.07.2009. The Tribunal under the impugned order, has not suspended the order of rejection of the objections of the 3rd respondent dated 23.08.2008, but has only suspended the final seniority list. He further submits that giving a positive direction, apart from suspension of the final seniority list, would lead to further complication by altering the seniority list and following altogether a different criteria for effecting the promotions.

8. The learned Government Pleader filed a counter supporting the impugned proceedings before the Tribunal on the ground that the 3rd respondent's claim and objection to the provisional seniority list was rejected under a reasoned order dated 23.08.2008 in compliance with the directions of the Tribunal in O.A. 1773/2008. He further submits that the 3rd respondent has neither filed any departmental appeal nor approached the Tribunal against the said order. Thus, the final seniority list, thereafter issued, was consequential proceedings to the order of rejection of the objections of the 3rd respondent dated 23.08.2008.

9. Mr. P.V. Krishnaiah, learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent contends and supports the interim order of the Tribunal, on the ground that there is absolutely no basis for preparation of provisional and final seniority lists. According to the learned Counsel, the date of actual promotion and the date of promotion assigned in seniority list, so far as 3rd respondent is concerned, is totally without any basis. He also submits that the authorities have acted in a secretive manner and the final seniority list was not communicated and released and at the same time the promotions were sought to be made based on the said list. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent has approached the Tribunal by way of a lunch motion and filed the present O.A. and the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned interim order. The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent has filed additional material papers and made several submissions with regard to the merits of the seniority list and the relative position which ought to be assigned to the 3rd respondent instead of one shown in the provisional and final seniority list.

10. We have considered the submissions, and in our view, the substantial contentions of the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent are all with respect to the matters relating to the merits of the O.A. itself, and since the O.A. filed by the 3rd respondent is pending before the Tribunal, any adjudication of issues involved in the said O.A. by this Court, at this interlocutory stage, would not be justified. In the present writ petition, we are only concerned with the justification and legality with regard to ex parte interim orders passed by the Tribunal which are impugned herein. We shall, therefore, deal with the aspect concerning the said impugned order alone and rest of the matters, so far as the merits are concerned, shall be agitated by both parties appropriately before the Tribunal in O.A.

11. It cannot be denied that as per the directions of the Tribunal earlier in O.A. 1773/2008, the Commissioner of Industries has considered the objections of the 3rd respondent and by a reasoned order dated 23.08.2008 rejected the said objections and the principal ground on which the learned Commissioner has relied upon was that though the 3rd respondent was promoted on 15.09.2003 the said promotion was only temporary and the vacancy so far as she is concerned came up only on 19.08.2006, and accordingly, her date of regular promotion is assigned as 19.08.2006. The said action of the learned Commissioner in finalizing the provisional seniority list and final seniority list is justified by the Government by filing a counter affidavit before this Court.

12. According to the averments in the said counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the post of Assistant Director of Industries is governed by Special Rules entitled 'Andhra Pradesh Industries Service Rules' notified vide G.O.Ms. No. 188 Industries and Commerce (IE) dated 29.04.1993, and if the post is filled up by direct recruitment, by appointment by transfer of Industrial Promotion Officer (IPO)(Category to which the 3rd respondent belongs) and by appointment of transfer of Superintendents (Category to which the writ petitioner belongs). Note-2 appended to Rule 3 prescribes rotation of vacancies to be filled by various methods, and while as per the rotation policy, in a cycle of six vacancies every third vacancy is to be filled with Superintendents/CSR (Zone)/Head Office. Accordingly, the promotion of the petitioner was considered in the DPC held on 17.06.2006against the third vacancy meant for the Superintendent in the second cycle in a 6 point cycle as per the Special Rules and a vacancy is being available as on 07.07.2005 and the same date is assigned to him as shown in provisional and final seniority list. The assignment of the said position to the writ petitioner as well as the respective position to the 3rd respondent vide provisional seniority list Multi zone II, communicated in proceedings dated 13.02.2007stood confirmed and the objections of the 3rd respondent are rejected by a reasoned order, as early as on 23.08.2008itself.

13. The petitioner figures in the final seniority list at serial No. 11 whereas one James figures at serial No. 12 and 3rd respondent figures at Serial No. 13. We have also noticed that the objections to the provisional seniority list were filed by James who is at SI. No. 12 and 3rd respondent who is at SI. No. 13, and while the objections of both of them were rejected by a reasoned order, as above, only 3rd respondent has approached the Tribunal. It is also to be noticed that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 assert in their counter affidavit that there is no deviation of Rules and no injustice has been done to the 3rd respondent in assigning the seniority, as per the final seniority list impugned before the Tribunal. It is also mentioned that on account of the interim suspension of the final seniority list, the 12 vacancies in the promotional posts are held up hampering the functioning in the department.

14. We are also surprised to find that though the aforesaid counter affidavit is filed by the official respondents in this writ petition, supporting the final seniority list, impugned before the Tribunal, based on the interim orders of the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/Government has readily issued a Memo NO. 10361/IE/A1/2009-1 dated 30.07.2009 whereby the Government Pleader for Industries before the Tribunal was requested to take a long adjournment for filing counter before the Tribunal and simultaneously the Commissioner of Industries was directed to prepare the provisional seniority list by taking the length of service in the cadre of the Assistant Director of Industries as a criteria by following the Rule 33(a) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules. The Commissioner also further directed to invite objections to the provisional seniority list prepared on the basis and issued a final seniority list thereafter. The aforesaid memo issued by the Government appears to be only to implement the impugned directions of the Tribunal, as called upon, as represented by the 3rd respondent through her counsel.

15. The 1st respondent Government has failed to realize that preparing one more provisional and final seniority list by adopting a different criteria and making promotions based thereon would lead to innumerable further litigations, as several other employees who may not get promotion would invariably move the Courts and Tribunal for relief, which will again be subject to interim orders by the Tribunal and further orders by this Court. Further, the impugned provisional and final seniority list which was promulgated by the Government, according to them, was prepared by applying the correct rule position and also by taking into consideration the Special Rules and rotation of cycles. In such a case, therefore, instead of supporting the said action, adopting entirely a different criteria for preparing one more list and inviting objections to proposed promotions would certainly lead to two different sets of seniority lists resulting in uncalled for and unavoidable litigation. Since this Court passed an interim order on 03.08.2009 suspending the impugned orders of the Tribunal, perhaps the proceedings in furtherance of the Government Memo dated 30.07.2009 did not proceed further.

16. So far as the impugned order of the Tribunal is concerned, we are of the view that the final seniority list was prepared after duly considering the objections, the whatever grounds the petitioner had urged in the O.A. were already answered by the Government while rejecting the objections and in such an event, in the O.A. so filed against the final seniority list, no case can be said to have been made out to pass an interim order disrupting the seniority list itself, and at best the only relief which applicant could have had was that any promotion would be subject to the result of the O.A. The operation of the seniority list therefore did not warrant any stay. In the present case not only the final seniority list was suspended but further positive direction was given by the Tribunal to follow altogether different criteria for the purpose of preparation of seniority list and effecting promotions. In our view, therefore, such exercise was completely unwarranted and would have certainly led to innumerable litigation and further interim orders. Thereby, neither the present impugned seniority list nor the modified seniority list would have been operated, resulting in complete stagnation of promotional process. In our view, the balance of convenience is not in favour of the 3rd respondent/applicant, and in any case the facts and circumstances of the case did not warrant an ex parte interim order of this nature.

17. A Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us {Justice V. Eswaraiah} is party, in a considered judgment in R. Manjula v. Principal Secretary to Govt. Rev.(Services.I) Department, mentioned supra, have considered and held as follows:

33. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not normally interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the Tribunal. Grant of an interlocutory order or refusal thereof is within the discretion of the Tribunal. This Court would not interfere with such discretion exercised by the Tribunal with regard to the interlocutory orders unless it is established that passing of such interlocutory order or refusal thereof had resulted in an irreversible situation resulting in manifest injustice. It would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain any writ petition only for the purpose of granting an interim order during the pendency of the main proceedings before the Tribunal. However, it would be entirely a different matter if the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in the matter of granting interim reliefs results in incalculable repercussions and public mischief. In such cases where denial of interim orders may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable injury or shake a citizens faith in the judicial process, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to interfere and grant appropriate relief accordingly. Suffice it to observe, interference of this Court with the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal at interlocutory stage is not a matter of course.

34. The Tribunal in the instant cases having heard the matters at the admission stage in exercise of its discretion thought it fit to admit the original applications filed by the petitioners and accordingly directed notices requiring the respondents to appear in the matter. The Tribunal in its discretion thought it fit not to stall and interdict further promotions of eligible persons to the posts of Deputy Collectors. The order, in our considered opinion, had not resulted in any irreversible situation. The Tribunal is entitled to pass appropriate orders after hearing all the parties to the proceedings.

18. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, balance of convenience and prima facie case, we are of the view that even if 3rd respondent succeeds in O.A. and in the meanwhile the seniority list impugned in the O.A. is operated, she will be entitled to be restored with all the benefits of promotional post, and on the contrary, in case the seniority list is stayed or suspended and a different criteria is directed to be adopted for preparing a fresh seniority list, and based on that if further promotions are ordered, it will certainly lead to multifarious litigations.

19. The impugned order of the Tribunal, is therefore, not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and accordingly modified by directing that any promotions in pursuance of the impugned seniority list, shall be subject to the result of the O.A. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.

20. We request the Tribunal to hear and dispose of the O.A. as expeditiously as possible, on preferential basis. If no counter affidavits are filed by the respondents before the Tribunal so far, they are granted two weeks time from today for filing counters.