APHC010785352018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 39493/2018 Between: 1. Y. TEJASWARA RAO, S/O LATE Y. GOPALA RAO, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC. JUNIOR ASSISTANT, SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE, GAJAPATHINAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, R/O D.NO. 8-30- 15, THOTAPALEM, VIZIANAGARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (REGN-II) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, ANDHRA PRADESH,5-59, R.K.SPRING VALLEY APARTMENTS, EDUPUGALLU, KANKIPADU MANDAL, VIJAYAWADA- 521151, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF ASSURANCES, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, VIZIANAGARAM-531 202. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be 2 pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not considering my candidature for the promotion to the cadre of Senior Assistant at the right time, i.e., 29-11-2012, as it was done in the case of said D. Gopala Krishna who at that time was subordinate/ junior to the petitioner, got promoted, to the cadre of Senior Assistant, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust and consequentially direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for all the service and monetary benefits available to the cadre of Senior assistant W.E.F 29-11-12 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to place the name of the Petitioner on the top of , the seniority list, on notional basis, if not above the name of said D. Gopala Krishna, who as a matter of fact, is subordinate/ junior to the Petitioner, for all such applicable promotions and service and monetary benefits and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to substitute the prayer portion in para 20 of the affidavit filed along with main W.P. as follows Para 20 "Hence it is just and necessary that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by calling for the records relating the proceedings bearing Memo No.E1/780/2014, dt. 11-2- 2015, issued by the 3rd respondent and order in 0.A.No.316 of 2015, dt. 27- 12-2017 and quash the same, by declaring the same as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975, generallYcalled as Presidential Order and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for notional promotion to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 29-122012 with all consequential benefits, and to pass such other IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the additional material papers, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N ASHWANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) 2. GP FOR SERVICES I 4 The Court made the following ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) This writ petition is filed challenging the legal validity of the order dated 27.12.2017 passed in O.A.No.316 of 2015 with M.A.No.1094/2015 & VMA.No.472/2015 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad whereby the claim of the petitioner relating to his seniority in the unit to which he was transferred on his request was declined. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was originally appointed as Office Sub-ordinate in the Stamps & Registration Department of Srikakulam District. Thereafter, he was promoted as Junior Assistant. On his request made to transfer him to the unit of Vizianagaram District, he was transferred to Vizianagaram. But, after his transfer, he was placed down in the line of seniority of the Junior Assistants in the cadre of Vizianagaram District unit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad challenging the order placing him as a junior in the seniority list as Junior Assistants in the unit of Vizianagaram District. 4. The Tribunal by the impugned order, dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner got an alternative remedy of appeal provided under Rule 26 of Andhra Pradesh State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1966 (for short “the Rules, 1966”) before the Appellate 5 authority within the period of limitation. The Tribunal further held that there are no special or extra-ordinary circumstances to entertain the application contrary to Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on two Government Orders, namely 1) G.O.Ms.No.70, General Administration (MC-III) Department, dated 11.02.2008 and 2) G.O.Ms.No.674, General Administration (MC-I) Department, dated 07.09.2007 in support of his contentions. 6. We do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. When a right of appeal is provided under Rule 26 of the Rules, 1966 for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner, he has to avail the said remedy by preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority. But, without exhausting the said remedy, he has approached the Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is perfectly sustainable under law and it does not warrant any interference. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail his remedy of preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Rule 26 of the Rules, 1966. Learned counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to place the two Government Orders (supra), before the Appellate Authority in support of his contentions. In case the petitioner prefers any appeal under Rule 26 of the Rules, 1966, the time spent in pursuing this writ petition before this Court shall be excluded from consideration while computing the period of limitation. Since the writ petition is of the year 2018, if 6 the petitioner prefers any appeal under Rule 26 of the Rules, 1966, the Appellate Authority shall make an endeavour to dispose of the said appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of filing the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J ________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J Dated 13.11.2025 KA 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 39493/2018 Dated 13.11.2025 KA