M RAJI REDDY Vs. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION NOW THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION WARANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cases involving common questions of fact and law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The applicants before the Tribunals are the writ petitioners before us. They filed OA Nos.5233 of 1998 and 5234 of 1998 praying for similar reliefs, which are in the following terms:

(3.) Bereft of all unnecessary details, the fact of the matter is as follows:- The petitioners and the respondents were appointed as Physical Education Teachers. A combined Seniority List was prepared for the purpose of recruitment by transfer from the category of Physical Education Teacher working in the Government High Schools and Zilla Parishad High Schools. The petitioners herein acquired qualification for promotion to the next higher post of Physical Director Grade-II. It is not in dispute that the unofficial respondents acquired the requisite qualification later on. The contention of the petitioners before us, as also before the learned Tribunal, was that having regard to the provisions of Rule 6(b) read with Rule 23 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short, '1996 Rules'), it was incumbent upon the respondents to prepare a panel every year for promotion. The petitioners contend that such a panel was prepared in the year 1994-95 wherein their vacancies during the said year, which were filled up. However, later on 11th vacancy was also filled up. No panel, however, was prepared in the year 1995-96 despite the existence of six vacancies during the said year. A panel was prepared in the year 1996-97 which was received by the official respondents on 22-10-1996 and a supplementary panel on 26-12-1996. By reason of an order dated 29-4-1997, the petitioners were promoted, purported to be in terms of Rule 37(a)(i) Part II of the General Rules. However, on a representation made by the unofficial respondents herein, the said order of promotion was cancelled. The petitioners herein filed two applications marked as OA Nos.2594 of 1987 and 2863 of 1997, questioning the said order cancelling the order of promotions, whereupon the learned Tribunal by order dated 20-6-1997, directed the respondents to consider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Undisputedly, pursuant to or in furtherance of its direction, an opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioners, whereafter an order dated 22-7-1998 was passed directing as follows :