1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION No.4318 OF 2006 ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and in connection with the orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administration Tribunal in Rev.M.A.No.533/2000 in E.A.No.14/99 in O.A.No.6724/1992, dated 03.02.2005 and to quash or set aside by noting as erroneous and contrary to law. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Perused the record. 3. Submissions of the petitioner:- (a) The respondent No.1 is the applicant in O.A.No.6724 of 1992. The petitioners 1 to 3 have selected the unofficial respondent Nos.2 to 8 contrary to their own Rules on 04.11.1992. There are 07 posts of Watcher/Workman, out of which, one (01) is reserved for S.C. and one (01) for B.C-C and the other five (05) for O.C. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 were working in the said post temporarily since 1989 and the applicant Nos. 4 & 5 are working since 1985 and 1992 respectively. The respondents filed O.A.Nos.21329 and 21330 of 1991 and obtained interim direction for allowing 2 them to interview without insisting their names being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Employment Officer sponsored the names of A.R.Varada Raju, P. Venugopal and B.Venkata Ratnam. They appeared for the interview by virtue of the orders of the Tribunal. They should have been selected basing upon their experience. The respondent No.8, who belongs to forward caste, has been selected under B.C. group, treating him as B.C. candidate. In the same way, the other respondent Nos.5, 6, 9 and 11, who belong to O.C., are above 18 years and below 28 years and for B.C. and S.C., there is relaxation of 05 years. Thus, except respondent No.10, the other respondents belong to forward caste and they are all over aged. Against their selection, stating that it is illegal, arbitrary, they approached the Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. seeking to set-aside the same. 4. Submissions of the respondents:- The official respondents filed counter affidavit. Basing on the counter affidavit, it is submitted that the services of the applicants were not taken against the sanctioned posts. The notification vide Ref.No.11/90 NP, dated 05.05.1992 was issued. The candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange as well as the applicants, who got directions from the A.P.A.T., were interviewed through selection process, having on the merit. The unofficial respondents 5 to 11 therein were selected on merit. As such, it is contended that there is no merits in the O.A. and sought to dismiss the same. 3 5. Findings of the Tribunal:- (a) The Tribunal, having considered the submissions of both sides came to a conclusion that the averments made in the counter affidavit are very vague and therefore, it strengthens the version given by the applicants. (b) The Tribunal, having considered all the aspects and noticing that the applicant No.5 has been adjusted in the vacancy caused due to respondent No.8, leaving his service. It is directed that the applicant No.4/V.A.Vijaya Kumar to make an application to the concerned official respondents regarding consideration of his selection in the vacant position of the unofficial respondent No.5/G.Nagaraja, who is said to be left the service recently, if he has any claim. And on receipt of such application, the official respondents are directed to examine and consider the same, pass appropriate orders, in accordance with the relevant rules. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, the Forest Department has filed the present Writ Petition. 7. Admitted facts:- (a) Admittedly, there is a vacancy as on today due to the resignation of one Sri.G.Nagaraju. But, due to ban on afresh recruitment; the respondents also have no right for appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the case of the respondent No.1 was already considered 4 and rejected in the year 1999 itself and there are 28 candidates above 1st respondent and the petitioners have to appoint remaining candidates in the said list. (b) Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, and more particularly, on perusal of the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Rev.M.A.No.533/2000 in E.A.NO.14/1999 in O.A.No.6724/1992, dated 03.02.2005, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In fact, such contention was raised before the Tribunal by the Forest Department. However, considering all the aspects, the Tribunal passed orders in Rev.M.A.No.533/2000 directing the official respondents that if the post of 9th respondent is still vacant, the applicant should be given appointment. (c) During the course of hearing of this case today, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners, placed a copy of written instructions in Rc.No.4318/2026/S2/Court Case, dated 02.03.2026, received from the District Forest Officer, for perusal. (d) In paragraph No.15, point No.5 of the instructions, it is stated that moreover, on verification, it is noticed that the post of 9th respondent i.e., Sri.R.Guravaiah was never filled on later dates by the D.F.O., S.V. National Park, Tirupati neither with any of the candidates from the merit list nor with a new person. 5 8. Findings:- (a) In view of the fact that the post of 9th respondent i.e., Sri.R.Guravaiah is still vacant, till date, the writ petitioners have to consider the claim of the respondent No.1 as directed by the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal already made it clear that he is not entitled for any monetary benefits since it will be a fresh appointment to be given to him. (b) Taking into consideration of the fact that the respondent No.1 is moving from pillar to post since the year 1992, to get the post of Forest Watcher (whatever the name it may be after change), he should be accommodated in the said vacant post forthwith, by following the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and to meet the ends of justice. (c) Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has brought to the notice of this Court that in view of the change of Revenue Districts recently in the State, the post of the District Forest Officer also changed and the present jurisdiction to consider the case of the applicant is the Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor East (W.L) Division, Chittoor. (d) The District Forest Officer i.e., The respondent No.1 is directed to transmit the entire record along with this order copy to the Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor East (W.L) Division, Chittoor to take further action to appoint 6 the respondent No.1, in terms of the order of the Tribunal, within a period of four (04) weeks. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND _______________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated: 02.03.2026 PKR 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA 156 WRIT PETITION No.4318 OF 2006 Dated: 02.03.2026 PKR