K MALAKONDAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the matters arise out of a common order and therefore they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The short question which arises for consideration in these applications is as to whether the Tribunal committed an illegality in not following its earlier decision. The petitioner herein filed an Original Applications before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal seeking similar directions passed by it in OA No.5623 of 1993 and batch. Several other cases were also filed. By reason of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal considered the cases on merits and held that the A.P. Public Service Commission is justified in treating the petitioner as non-local candidate. However, from the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No.5623 of 1993 and batch, it appears, that it was directed:

(3.) Having regard to the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal, (1994) 4 SCC 212 and CST v. Pine Chemicals Limited, (1995) 1 SCC 58, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench is binding upon another co-ordinate Bench. If one co-ordinate Bench differs with the judgment of another co-ordinate Bench, it may refer the same to a larger Bench. This aspect of the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the apex Court in SI Rooplal v. LT. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi, wherein the Apex Court has held: