APHC010447732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.24759 OF 2025 Between: The Union of India, Rep. by The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, 3rd Floor, Secunderabad – 500025, and others. ...Petitioners AND N.Seshu Kumar (Group C), S/o. Lt. N.Subba Rao, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Senior Clerk (Gp.C), O/o Senior Divisional Personal Officer, South Central Railway, Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.C.V.R. Rudra Prasad (Central Govt Counsel) Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.Edukondalu Chandu The Court made the following ORDER: (per Hon’ble NJS,J) Heard Mr.C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, Learned Counsel representing the petitioners. Also heard Mr.Edukondalu Chandu, learned counsel for the respondent/Caveator. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.2.2024 in O.A. No.20/0879/2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), the petitioners filed the present 2 WP_24759_2025 writ petition. The respondent filed the said O.A., seeking the following relief: “ … … to call for records pertaining to and connected with the proceedings No.B/P. Con/11//MD/22/2016/NSK dated 05.08.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent declare, quash and set aside the same illegal, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice violative of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondent to treat him to have been absorbed in the cadre of junior clerk w.e.f. 21.9.2016 and consequently re-assign the seniority of the applicant in the cadre of junior clerk treating his date of entry in the cadre as 30.3.2025 with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 3. The basic facts with regard to the appointment of the respondent/ applicant as Tech–III in Electrical Loco Shed, Vijayawada on 30.3.2005 and his medical de-categorization on 20.6.2016 are not in dispute. However, though a screening test was conducted on 21.9.2016 for medically de-categorized employees of Railways, the respondent/ applicant was not called for the screening test on the said date, owing to administrative reasons, according to the writ petitioners. However, on a subsequent date i.e., on 22.11.2016, a screening test was conducted and thereafter the respondent/applicant was posted as Junior Clerk and on 12.12.2016 he joined in the said post. He also got promotion as Senior Clerk on 04.5.2018. Thereafter, he approached the learned Tribunal on 24.9.2019 seeking the relief mentioned supra. 3 WP_24759_2025 4. Before the learned Tribunal, it was inter alia urged that though the applicant was medically de-categorized on 20.6.2016 to hold the post of Tech III, he was not called for the screening test conducted on 21.9.2016, but on a subsequent date on 22.11.2016, and the other employees who were medically de-categorized subsequent to the applicant were called for the screening test conducted on 21.9.2016, as a result his right to become Senior Clerk at the earliest point of time was infringed by the writ petitioners due to their lapse and mistake, but for no fault of the applicant. His contention appears to be that had he been called for screening test on 21.9.2016, he would have become Senior Clerk long back. 5. Before the learned Tribunal, the writ petitioners/respondents filed a detailed reply inter alia pointing out the delay and laches on the part of the respondent/applicant and raising other pleas including estoppel. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners while drawing the attention of this Court to the elaborate reply filed on behalf of the writ petitioners/ respondents, made submissions to the effect that the learned Tribunal without considering the same had only taken the aspect of the delay caused due to administrative reasons, which in fact is duly explained. He submits that the respondent/applicant having accepted the post of Junior Clerk on 12.12.2016 and got promotion as Senior Clerk on 04.5.2018 was estopped from reopening the matter and further that by virtue of the orders passed by the learned Tribunal the rights accrued to the third parties would also be affected. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the writ petition by setting aside the order of the Tribunal. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ applicant sought to sustain the order passed by the learned Tribunal. However, in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for 4 WP_24759_2025 the writ petitioners with reference to the pleas taken in the reply, this Court expressed the view that the matter may perhaps be remanded to the learned Tribunal for considering the said pleas, and the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant agreed for the same. 8. In view of the circumstances stated above, the writ petition is allowed, at the stage of admission. The order dated 05.2.2024 in O.A. No.20/0879/2019 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal for consideration afresh in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to both sides. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J _____________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J September 16, 2025 vasu