D SAMBAMURTHY Vs. COLLECTOR E G DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ appeals are preferred against the common judgment of our learned brother P.A. Chowdary J, in W.P. Nos. 656 and 662 of 1979 respectively. The two writ petitions were heard together as the facts and circumstances in both the cases were similar and the questions for consideration were the same.

(2.) The main arguments were addressed by Sri Y. Suryanarayana in W.A. No. 110 of 1979 and Sri P. Ramakrishna Raju who appeared in W.A. No. 134 of 1979 adopted the arguments and submitted that in his writ appeal the decision in W.A. No 110 of 1979 may be followed. It is therefore sufficient to state the facts necessary for the disposal of W.A. No. 110/79. The appellant herein filed a suit, O.S. 53 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif. Pitbapuram for a declaration that the correct date of birth of the plaintiff is 30-4-1925 and not 30-4-1923. On the date of the suit he was working as Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samithi Pithapuram. His case was that his date of birth was wrongly given at the time of admission in the B.H. School, Chodavaram by his father as 30-4-1923. This date of birth was carried into his service register. In December 1977 while his brother was searching his old records he found the horoscope of the plaintiff prepared by Sri Nistala Parvateesam, a Veteran Astrologer of Anakapalle which clearly showed that the appellant's correct date of birth was 30-4-1925. He, thereupon issued a notice under Sec. 80 C.P C to the Government represented by the Collector, East Godavari, but no reply was given. In the meanwhile in the first week of March, 1978 he received a communication, G O. Rt 174 dated 17-2-1978 through the Collector, East Godavari stating that the plaintiff had to retire by the afternoon of 30-4-1978. The plaintiff made a representation to the Secretary to the Government, Panchayat Raj stating that his correct date of birth was 30-4-1925 and he was entitled to continue in service upto 30-4-1980. A communication was sent to the plaintiff on 21-3-1971 informing him that his request for extension of service beyond 30-4-1978 was rejected. He thereupon filed the suit O.S. 53/78 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Pithapuram for a declaration that his correct date of birth was 30-4-1925 and not 30-4-1923. He also prayed for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant from relieving the plaintiff from service on the afternoon of 30 4-1978 in pursuance of GORt. 174 dr. 17-2-78. The first defendant to the suit is thefSecretary to the Government, Panchayat Raj, the second defendant is the State of Andbra Pradesh represented by the Collector, East Godavari.

(3.) The appellant herein also asked for a temporary injunction restraining the State from relieving him from service on 30-4-1978 and to continue him in service till 30-4-1980. An exporte interim injunction was granted. Thereafter the application was being posted along with the suit. When the application and the suit were pending the first respondent herein namely, the Collector, East Godavari filed W.P. No. 656/79 praying for the issue of a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ or order restraining the Distict Munsif, Pithapuram who was added as the second respondent to the petition from proceeding with the suit O.S. 53 of 1978 on his file and to declare the proceedings taken so far as invalid and to reject the plaint as he had no jurisdiction to hear the same in view of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Order 1975. It was contended by the petitioner in the writ petition that under clause 6 of the Andbra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Order 1975 (referred to in this judgment as 'the Administrative Tribunal Order') the tribunal alone is empowered to exercise all the jurisdiction, powers and authority which immediately before the commencement of the order were exercisable by all courts with respect to appointment, allotment or promotion to any public post, seniority of persons appointed, allotted, or promoted to such post and all other conditions of service of such persons. In view of this provision the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit or to grant an interim injunction. When the writ petition was heard by our learned brother P.A. Chowdary J. the appellant herein contended inter alia that the High Court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition against a subordinate Court. It was further submitted that at any rate the subordinate court had itself the jurisdiction to decide whether it could entertain the suit or not. It was not therefore open to this court to issue a writ of prohibition which would in effect prevent the subordinate Court from deciding whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit or not. It was also urged that the first respondent herein has an alternative remedy either by requesting the subordinate court to vacate the interim injunction granted or to prefer an appeal against the order of interim injunction and hence this was not a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution.