# GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ANR v. Y. SURENDER REDDY

- **Citation:** [2006] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 1021
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2006-05-25
- **Bench:** Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Lokeshwar Singh Panta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/government-of-a-p-and-anr-v-y-surender-reddy-21509
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution of India, I 950-Artic/e I 36-Jurisdiction under-Exercise
of-Government challenging the order of High Court-Held: Order of High
Court had worked itself out with the passing of an order by State GovernmentState Government's order superseded by subsequent order of the tribunal
which is not challenged-Hence relief sought for cannot be grantedHowever, in the interest of justice, party permitted to challenge the order
of tribunal by filing writ petition before the High Court-Administrative
Tribunal Act, 1985.
Respondent, an employee of APSRTC filed an application before
the Administrative Tribunal for issuance of direction to the appellantGovernment to consider his case for appointment as Assistant Motor
Vehicle Inspector. Tribunal dismissed the application. Respondent filed
a writ petition. High Court directed the Surplus Manpower Cell to
sponsor the name of the respondent for appointment since the respondent
had undergone training. State Government did not implement the order
passed by High Court. Respondent filed a contempt petition before the
High Court. During pendency of the contempt petition, appellant filed
A
B
c
D
E
the instant special leave petition. Thereafter, High Court disposed of the
contempt petition holding that since the Government had considered the
F
case of the respondent and passed an order there was no wilful
disobedience of the order and the aggrieved respondent could seek
redressal from the appropriate forum. Thereafter, respondent filed an
application challenging the Government's order, before the
Administrative Tribunal which was allowed. This Court granted leave
prayed for in SLP and stayed the order.
G
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. In the absence of the challenge to the judgment dated
Z6.05.2004 passed by the Tribunal in 0.A. No. 3200/2004, relief cannot
H
1021
1022
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
be granted to the appellants in the instant appeal. The impugned order
dated 08.08.2003 has worked itself out with the passing of the order
dated 23.12.2003 by the State Government. That order stands superseded
in view of the Tribunal's order dated 26.5.2004. Since the order dated
26.05.2004 has not been challenged, in the interest of justice, appellants
B
are permitted to challenge the order of the Tribunal dated 26.5.2004 in
0.A. No. 3200 of 2004 before the High Court. [1025-D-GI
1.2. Even though the order was passed on 26.5.2004, the same could
not be challenged because of the pendency of the appeal in this Court.
Therefore, the time, if any taken by the appellants to file this appeal
C
has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation. (1025-G(
D
1.3. It cannot be said that since the similarly placed persons have
been accommodated and the respondent's case is an isolated one and
since the appellants have not challenged the tribunal's order dated
26.5.2004 for the last two years, this Court may not exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in favour of the appellants.
If similarly placed persons have already been accommodated, the State
may consider the case of the respondent in a sympathetic manner and
pass appropriate orders accordingly. [1026-8-DJ
E

## Text

GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ANR.
v.
Y. SURENDER REDDY
MAY 25, 2006
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, I 950-Artic/e I 36-Jurisdiction under-Exercise
of-Government challenging the order of High Court-Held: Order of High
Court had worked itself out with the passing of an order by State GovernmentState Government's order superseded by subsequent order of the tribunal
which is not challenged-Hence relief sought for cannot be grantedHowever, in the interest of justice, party permitted to challenge the order
of tribunal by filing writ petition before the High Court-Administrative
Tribunal Act, 1985.
Respondent, an employee of APSRTC filed an application before
the Administrative Tribunal for issuance of direction to the appellantGovernment to consider his case for appointment as Assistant Motor
Vehicle Inspector. Tribunal dismissed the application. Respondent filed
a writ petition. High Court directed the Surplus Manpower Cell to
sponsor the name of the respondent for appointment since the respondent
had undergone training. State Government did not implement the order
passed by High Court. Respondent filed a contempt petition before the
High Court. During pendency of the contempt petition, appellant filed
A
B
c
D
E
the instant special leave petition. Thereafter, High Court disposed of the
contempt petition holding that since the Government had considered the
F
case of the respondent and passed an order there was no wilful
disobedience of the order and the aggrieved respondent could seek
redressal from the appropriate forum. Thereafter, respondent filed an
application challenging the Government's order, before the
Administrative Tribunal which was allowed. This Court granted leave
prayed for in SLP and stayed the order.
G
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. In the absence of the challenge to the judgment dated
Z6.05.2004 passed by the Tribunal in 0.A. No. 3200/2004, relief cannot
H
1021
1022
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
be granted to the appellants in the instant appeal. The impugned order
dated 08.08.2003 has worked itself out with the passing of the order
dated 23.12.2003 by the State Government. That order stands superseded
in view of the Tribunal's order dated 26.5.2004. Since the order dated
26.05.2004 has not been challenged, in the interest of justice, appellants
B
are permitted to challenge the order of the Tribunal dated 26.5.2004 in
0.A. No. 3200 of 2004 before the High Court. [1025-D-GI
1.2. Even though the order was passed on 26.5.2004, the same could
not be challenged because of the pendency of the appeal in this Court.
Therefore, the time, if any taken by the appellants to file this appeal
C
has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation. (1025-G(
D
1.3. It cannot be said that since the similarly placed persons have
been accommodated and the respondent's case is an isolated one and
since the appellants have not challenged the tribunal's order dated
26.5.2004 for the last two years, this Court may not exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in favour of the appellants.
If similarly placed persons have already been accommodated, the State
may consider the case of the respondent in a sympathetic manner and
pass appropriate orders accordingly. [1026-8-DJ
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7938 of
F
2004.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.2003 of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P No. 14645/2000.
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv., for the Appellants.
K.V. Vishwanathan, D. Bharat Kumar, Anand and Abhijit Sengupta,
Advs., for the Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : The above appeal is directed against
the final judgment and order dated 8.8.2003 passed by the High Court of
Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 14645 of
H 2000 whereby the High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the
GOVT. OF A.P. v. Y. SURENDER REDDY [LAKSHMANAN, J.]
1023
respondent herein with a direction that the Surplus Manpower Cell in Finance
Department shall consider the case of the writ petitioner for sponsoring his
name to the Transport Commissioner for being appointed as Assistant Motor
Vehicles Inspector pending any modifications to the Rules, if required. The
High Court also directed that this exercise shall be done within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
We have heard Mrs. Bharti Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants
and Mr. Vishwanathan, learned counsel for the respondent.
Before proceeding to consider the rival submissions, it is necessary to
A
B
set out certain background facts of this case:
C
The respondent herein filed the. application under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad praying for a direction to the appellant
to consider his case for appointment of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector.
At that time (and even now the respondent) is an employee of A.P.S.C.R.I.C.
The respondent has based his right inter alia in G.O. Ms No. 275 dated
14.12.1995 and on the fact that similarly situated employees have been
considered for appointment as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. Further,
details are not necessary since the present appeal has become infructuous,
according to the respondent.
The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dismissed the 0.A. No.
3805/2000 as not maintainable since the Tribunal felt that the respondent was
D
E
an employee of a Corporation and as corporation employee will not come
within the purview of the Act. The respondent had argued that as per Section
F
15 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, the Tribunal has got jurisdiction since
the respondent was seeking an appointment to the civil post under the State
Government based inter alia on G.O. Ms. No. 275 dated 14.12.1995. The
Tribunal dismissed the 0.A. as not maintainable.
The respondent filed W.P. No. 14645/2000 before the High Court of G
Andhra Pradesh and not only prayed for setting aside the Tribunal order
dated 24.7.2000 in O.A. No. 3805/2000 but also prayed for a direction to
consider the case of the respondent for appointment as Assistant Motor
Vehicle Inspector.
H
1024
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
The Division Bench of the High Court did not go into the maintainability
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
of the 0.A. and further considered the matter and passed the impugned order.
The observations are as follows:
"Now, the scenario has been changed. It is the case of the petitioner
that he was sponsored by Surplus Manpower Cell in Finance Wing
to Transport Commissioner for being appointed as Assistant Motor
Vehicle Inspector, and consequently he had undergone training and
completed the training. But no appointment orders are issued.
Under these circumstances, since the petitioner was found to
be eligible for being appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector
and also undergone required training, we are inclined to dispose of
the writ petition with a direction that the Surplus Manpower Cell
in Finance Department shall consider the case of the petitioner for
sponsoring name of petitioner to the Transport Commissioner for
being appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector pending any
modifications to the Rules, if any required. This exercise shall be
donf' within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. No costs."
The appellant purportedly in implementation of the impugned order
took up the case of the respondent on the ground that Act 14 of 1997 of the
Andhra Pradesh Legislature prohibits the corporation employees from being
absorbed in Government. In fact the contention of the respondent is that the
Act 14 of 1997 has no application since it says that the absorption of public
sector undertaking employees is prohibited only on the ground that the
undertaking has be,:ome sick or are likely to become sick. In this ca~e the
contention of the respondent's is that A.P.S.C.R.l.C. is not sick. The
respondent filed a contempt petition aggrieved by the order dated 23 .12.2003.
The appellant filed the present special leave petition during the
pendency of the Contempt Petition No. 85/2005 before the High Court.
The Contempt Petition filed by the respondent in the High Court was
disposed of with the following observation~:
"In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that Government
considered the case of the petitioner and passed an ordl!r on
GOVT. OF A.P. v. Y. SURENDER REDDY [LAKSHMANAN, J.]
1025
23 .12.2003. As such, there is no wilful disobedience of the order
of this Hon 'hie Court. If the petitioner is aggrieved of order dated
23 .I 2.2003, he can seek redressal from the appropriate forum".
Thereafter, against the order of 23.12.2003, the respondent preferred
O.A. No. 3200/2004 before the A.P.A.T., Hyderabad and the same was
allowed by the Tribunal with the following observations:
"In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the answering
respondent has already undergone training, taking into consideration,
the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court in. W.P. No.
14645/2000, the Finance Department Le. the first respondent is
directecf to sponsor the name of the answering respondent for
appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector and
pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from today,
after due consideration of the judgment of the Hon 'hie High Court
in W.P. No. 14645/2000 dated 18.8.2002."
On 6.12.2004, this Court granted leave in the special leave petition and
directed that there shall be a stay of operation of impugned judgment.
We have considered the rival submissions. In our view, in the absence
of the challenge to the judgment dated 26.5.2004 passed by the Tribunal in
0.A. No. 3200/2004, relief cannot be granted to the appellants in the present
appeal. The impugned order dated 8.8.2003 has worked itself out with the
passing of the order dated 23.12.2003 by the State Government. That order
stands superseded in view of the Tribunal's order dated 26.5.2004 in O.A.
No. 3200 of 2004. The learned counsel for the appellant also raised the
contention before this Court in regard to the jurisdiction of the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Since the said order has not been challenged,
we now permit the appellants, iii the interest of justice, to challenge the order
of the Tribunal dated 26.5.2004 in 0.A. No. 3200 of 2004 before the High
Court. This apart, the Special Leave Petition filed by the appellants is also
pending before this Court. Even though the order was passed on 26.5.2004,
the same could not be challenged because of the pendency of the appeal in
this Court. Therefore, the time taken by the _appellants to file this appeal has
to be excluded in computing the period of limitation, if any. The appellants
may file a writ petition questioning the correctness of the order dated
26.5.2004, if they so desire. If such a writ petition is filed within one month
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
1026
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
from today, the same shall be entertained and disposed of by the High Court
on merits and in accordance with law. The respondent has also filed another
Writ Petition No. 8350/2004 in the High Court citing the case of appointments
made in similarly situated persons. The said writ petition is also pending
consideration by the High Court, which also shall be disposed of by the High
Court as expeditiously as possible along with the petition that may be filed
by the State of Andhra Pradesh. Mr. Vishwanathan, learned Counsel for the
respondent also submits that similarly placed persons have been accommodated
and the respondent's case is an isolated one and since the appellants have
not challenged the Tribunal's Order dated 26.5.2004 in 0.A. No. 3200 of
2004 for the last two years, this Court may not exercise its jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India in favour of the appellants. We are
not able to countenance the respondent's submissions. The statement of Mr.
Vishwanathan is disputed by Mrs. Bharati Reddy, learned counsel for the
State. If similarly placed persons have already been accommodated, tlie State
may consider the case of the respondent in a sympathetic manner and pass
D appropriate orders accordingly.
E
We have already stated the reasons as to why the writ petition could
not be filed by the State challenging the order of the Tribunal. In view of
the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraph, we permit the State to file the
writ petition before the High Court.
The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
N.J.
Appeal disposed of.