Writ Petition No.16890 of 2006 was also filed against the very same judgment by some of the employees who felt aggrieved by the view taken by the Tribunal that the impugned G.O.Ms.
Inclusion of other categories from outside the zone in the feeding channel for purposes of promotion or appointment by transfer was offensive to paras 3 3 and 5 1 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Organisation of Local Cards and Regulation of Direct Recruitment Order, 1975 referred to hereinabove as the Presidential Order against the employees.
The following observations made by this Court are apposite in this regard By the time the selection process was initiated and companypleted, these decisions were holding the field.
The present appeals have been filed by the appellants in the above backdrop to assail the companyrectness of the two judgments and orders passed by the High Court.
An order dated 3rd November, 2010 passed by the High Court dismissing a review petition filed by the appellants against the said order has also been assailed.
These petitions were partly allowed by the Tribunal in terms of its order dated 7th March, 2003 and G.O.M. No.14, dated 26th November, 1994, as amended by G.O.M. No.22 dated 9th May, 1996 struck down as unconstitutional to the extent the same provided a channel for Senior Assistant and Senior Stenographer in Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service working in the Head Offices of Labour Department and those in Factories and Boiler Departments besides those in the Subordinate Offices in the said Departments for appointment by transfer to the post of Assistant Labour Officer.
Feeling aggrieved of the judgment and order passed by the High Court they filed Review WPMP No.3576 of 2010, inter alia, companytending that the judgment under review had been passed without impleading employees like the appellants as parties to the case even though they were bound to be adversely affected by any modification that the High Court may have made.
Their grievance primarily was that since the post of Assistant Labour Officer is a zonal post, employees working in the respective zones alone were entitled to be included in the feeding channel.
were in violation of the Presidential Order hence unconstitutional.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has, in terms of the judgment and order under challenge before us, allowed Writ Petitions No.6123 and 6068 of 2004 but dismissed Writ Petition No.16890 of 2006 relying upon certain decisions rendered by this Court.
provide that while Senior Assistants and Senior Stenographers working in the Subordinate Offices of the Labour Department companystitute the feeding channel under Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Labour Subordinate Service Rules, Senior Assistants and Senior Stenographers working in the Head Offices shall also be eligible for appointment by transfer to the post of Assistant Labour Officer.
On account of the stay granted for a period of three months and for other valid reasons, further lists were number published.
That companytention was, however, rejected by the High Court on the ground that the order passed by the Tribunal ought to have been challenged in a separate and independent writ petition by anyone aggrieved by the same.
some of the employees approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for redressal.
The aggrieved employees, who had approached the Tribunal having succeeded but only in part, filed Writ Petitions No.6163 and 6068 of 2004 whereby they challenged the judgment of the Tribunal to the extent it saved the promotions already made on the basis of the impugned G.O.Ms.
Aggrieved by the G.O.Ms.
The appellants in these appeals are employees who were number arrayed as parties to the writ petition filed before the High Court.
