D NARSIMHULU Vs. A P LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No.7214 of 2002 is filed by D.Narasimhulu assailing the validity of the notice bearing Memo No.853/P.P. 1/2001, dated 28.3.2002 and the subsequent order issued in G.O. Rt. No.730, dated 20.6.2002 reverting him to the post of Reporter from the post of Assistant Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legislature. Writ Petition No. 11264 of 2002 is filed by Sri S.Raja Shdaram questioning the validity of the Government Order G.O. Rt. No.730, Legislature (O.P.I) Secretariat, dated 20.6.2002 reverting him to the post of Chief Reporter from the post of Assistant Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legislature. Since facts and questions of law that arise for decision are substantially similar, both the writ petitions were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) The substantive questions that were raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners are : (i) the impugned action taken by the Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature is not in conformity with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 5.2.2002 in Writ Appeal Nos.390, 413 and 1372 of 2002 and in fact the order of the Division Bench would not enable the Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature to do the impugned action, (ii) that it was totally impermissible and illegal for the Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature to revert the petitioners to the post of Chief Reporter and Reporter without revising the newly prepared panel in pursuance of the order of the learned single Judge in WP No.32601 of 1997, dated 4.9.2000.

(3.) Although this case has had chequered career, it is not necessary for the Court to refer to all those past facts and the entire case history. Suffice it to state that when the correctness of the order of the learned single Judge dated 4.9.2000 in WP No.32601 of 1997 was questioned before the Division Bench, at the time of hearing of those writ appeals, it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that in pursuance of the direction issued by the learned single Judge, revised panels for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 were prepared and promotions were given to the writ petitioners on the basis of the revised panels. In view of that submission, the Court while allowing the writ appeals and setting aside the order of the learned single Judge, the Division Bench observed: