STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. K DHANRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of writ petitions with identical background facts, throws up similar question. There are three impugned orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT or the tribunal). These followed an earlier order dated 20.12.2011 of the Hon'ble Vice Chairman (HVC) of the APAT, constituting as a Bench under Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (the Act), in O. A. Nos. 10947 of 2009 and batch. The first respondent (hereafter, the applicants) in each of the cases was successful before the APAT. All of them entered caveat. After proper notice to their Counsel, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission at length. This common order shall dispose of all the petitions.

(2.) It was alleged that they belong to BC, they did not stand excluded by the creamy layer policy; they produced the valid certificate issued by the competent authority; and in an arbitrary manner the Board considered their case as OC candidate for non-production of a BC non-creamy layer certificate. The Government and the Board opposed contending that as per the relevant Government Order Rs. 4.00 lakhs income limit is a criteria for determining the creamy layer among BCs; the applicants failed to produce the relevant certificate that they did not belong to creamy layer and that the necessary amendment was also made to Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (General Rules). The learned Vice Chairman sitting single considered as many as five points and allowed the Original Applications on 28.02.2011. While doing so G. O. Ms. No. 3, dated 04.04.2006 was set aside and a further direction was given to fix the creamy layer as per the Government of India (GoI) Memo, dated 25.10.2008, i. e. , Rs. 4.5 lakhs and consider the case of the applicants therein as per their merit under various BC categories. There is no dispute that the Board implemented this order by giving appointment orders to as many as 59 BC candidates. Be it noted, within a month thereafter, the learned Chairman of the tribunal also allowed similar case, being O. A. No. 3625 of 2010, following the order of the HVC.

(3.) The applicants in these matters filed another batch of applications seeking similar relief. They claimed the same relief as in O. A. No. 3625 of 2010. The learned Judicial Member sitting single followed the order of HVC and allowed the Original Applications by three separate orders passed in December 2011 and January 2012, aggrieved by which, the Government, the Board and the Cyberabad Commissioner of Police filed these writ petitions.