M SHYAM SUNDER Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proliferation of seniority disputes in service law is characterized with perpetuation. As observed by the Supreme Court in Dr. G. Manila Siddaiah v. Dr. T.G. Siddapparadhya the canker of litigiousness has spread even to a sphere of life where discipline should check ambition concerning personal preferment despite the expectation that a Government servant is expected to bear with fortitude and reconcile himself to his lot suppressing disappointment when he finds a co-worker raised to a position which he himself aspired after. (See also D. Hanmanth Rao v. State of A.P.).

(2.) This preface to this judgment is, however, not to subject the lis to microscopic judicial scrutiny nor to turn away the petitioners at the threshold. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the question relates to correctness of a Government Order purporting to revise the dates of regularisation of the petitioners and consequent downward review of their positions in the seniority lists of Deputy Executive Engineers (DEEs). We are concerned with only with such seniority lists relating to Zones V, VI and VII. The questions raised are common in all the writ petitions and therefore one common judgment is appropriate. FACTS OF THE CASE:

(3.) All these applications seek judicial review of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judicial Member of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') dated 19-4-2000 (hereinafter called 'the impugned judgment') in O.A.No. 1357 of 2000 and batch consisting in all ten cases. While noticing the facts, we have not only relied on the pleadings before the Tribunal and before this court, but also relied on voluminous documents placed on record to trace the history of litigation which ultimately culminated in the issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 72, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Ser-II) Department dt. 6-5-2000 (hereinafter called 'the impugned order').