Y MARKANDEYUDU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter that arises for consideration in both these writ petitions is one and the same and, therefore, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. The petitioners herein invoked the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad challenging the constitutional validity of the amended proviso to Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Treasury and Accounts Subordinate Service Rules on various grounds in O.A.Nos.5312 of 1996 and 383 of 1996 respectively. The Tribunal by its common Judgment dated 13/08/1997 disposed of O.A.No.6456 of 1995 and Batch, including the above Original Applications, upholding the constitutional validity of the said amended proviso to Rule 6 of the said Rules. The Tribunal after an elaborate consideration of the matter rejected the contentions raised by the petitioners. Hence these writ petitions.

(2.) Before adverting to the question as to whether the Tribunal has committed any error in upholding the constitutional validity of the amended proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules, it may be necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts leading to filing of these writ petitions.

(3.) The petitioners in both the writ petitions, at the time of filing of the writ petitions, have been working as Senior Accountants in the Treasuries and Accounts Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Their service conditions including the appointment, promotion, seniority etc., in the Treasuries and Accounts Department are regulated by the rules known as "Andhra Pradesh Treasury and Accounts Subordinate Service Rules" (for short 'the Rules') made by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. They are the special rules. The rules deemed to have come into force on and with effect from 1-4-1958.According to the said Rules, the promotion from the cadre of Senior Accountant to that of the Superintendent/Sub-Treasury Officer is based upon the seniority alone.