PAUL JOIN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether despite unreasonable delay, a person is entitled to get the benefit of the judgment is the question involved in this application.

(2.) One of the applicants before the Tribunal who were six in number has filed the present writ petition. They filed an Original Applications inter alia praying the learned Tribunal to direct the respondents therein to appoint them as Special Teachers by declaring the action of the respondents in appointing only 912 candidates through G.O.Ms.No.156 dated 8.7.1996 as illegal and discriminatory.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he appeared for the test conducted by the District Selection Committee for the post of Special Teacher. The High Court dismissed W.P.Nos.17104 to 17106 of 1993 filed by 912 petitioners directing them to approach the State Administrative Tribunal at the first instance. Consequently, O.A.Nos.7993 of 1998 and batch filed by those petitioners were dismissed by the Tribunal. Some original applications filed by the petitioner herein among others were also dismissed on the ground that they are covered by the decision of the Tribunal in O.A.No.7993 of 1998 and batch. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Tribunal, the other applicants in O.A.No.7993 of 1998 preferred Writ Petition Nos.10586 of 1999 and batch wherein this Court by an order dated 28.8.2000 observed that such of the qualified candidates who appeared for the selection of Special Teachers were eligible to be appointed subject of course to the availability of vacancies. The petitioner contends after dismissal of his case before the learned Tribunal, he did not prefer any writ petition before this Court as he was waiting for the outcome of the Writ Petition Nos.10586 of 1999 and batch. The learned counsel would therefore submit that the benefit of the decision rendered in W.P.No.10586 of 1999 and batch should also be extended to the petitioner.