Appellants challenged a Single Judge order granting notional seniority to the writ petitioner without hearing affected parties, which had redrawn the seniority list against them. The Division Bench granted liberty to file a review petition or fresh writ and stayed effect to the final seniority list for fifteen days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VUAY
WRIT APPEAL NO: 119 OF 2024
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred the against order dated 30.09.2022 in W.P(AT).No. 1208/2021, on the file of the High Court.
Between:
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 3 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed in WP(AT).No.l208/2021, dt.30.9.2022 in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Appellants : SRI K. BHEEMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI P. V. RAMANARAO
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : GP FOR SERVICE-III
Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI R. SATYANARAYANAMURTHY
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W.A.No.119 of 2024
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice G.Na render)
Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellants; Sri P.V.RamanaRao, Learned Counsel; Learned Government Pleader for Services-III and the Sri R.Satyanarayana Murthy, Learned Counsel representing respondents.
'5. Accordingiy, the Office Order No.SE/SPC/NLR/Speaking Orders/O.A.No.2270/2017/E-2/dated 03.10.2017 passedbyrespondentNo.lis set aside and the petitioner is heid entitied for notionaisenioritybyduiytreating the date of his joining in iand acquisition unit asthedateof joiningofthe present post and aii other benefits."
2
Appellants herein. On account of the Order of the Learned Single Judge, the official respondents have re-drawn the seniority list and placed the writ petitioner above the Appellants in the order of the seniority. The case of the Appellants in this Appeal is canvassed on grounds that have not been urged before the Learned Single Judge. In sum and substance, a new case is being canvassed before the Division Bench, which case, admittedly was not canvassedbeforethe Learned Single Judge.
- In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Writ Appeal could be disposed of granting liberty to the Appellants to seek for review of the Order passed by the Learned Single Judge in terms of the Law laid down by the Hon'ble Constitution Bench in Shivdeb Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others^ wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in similar circumstances was pleased to
hold as under:-
"8. The other contention of Mr. Gopal Singh pertains to the second order of Khosla, J., which in effect, reviews his prior order. Learned counsel contends that Art. 226 of the Constitution does not confer any power on the High Court to review its own order and, therefore, the second order of Khosla, J., was without jurisdiction. It is sufficient to say that there is nothing in Art. 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which' inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. Here the previous order of Khosla, J., affected the interests of persons who were not made parties to the proceeding before him. It was at their instance and for giving them a hearing that Khosla' J. entertained the second petition. In doing so, he merely did what the principles of natural justice required him to do. It is said thatthe respondents before us had no. right to apply for review because they were not parties to the previous proceedings. As we have already pointed out, it is precisely because they were not made parties to the previous proceedings, though their interests were sought to be affected by the decision of the High Court, that the second application was e entertained by Khosla, J."
1
AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1909
3
- Therefore, liberty is granted to the Appellants toseekreviewof the order by way of Review Petition or to file a freshWrit Petition impugning the final seniority list and also seek an independent relief for review of the earlier order rendered in W.P (AT) No.1208 of 2021, dated 30.09.2022.
- Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of inaboveterms. The official respondents shall not give effect to the final seniority list
drawn up pursuant to the Order of the Learned Single Judge, for a period of fifteen (15) days.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending
applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
\ \
HIGH COURT
OATED:08/02/2024
ORDER
WA.No.119of 2024
ano75^
fe 0 4 MAX 202^1
Current Section
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether appellants, not heard by the Single Judge before seniority was granted to the writ petitioner, may seek review of the writ order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shivdeb Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and othersRelied on¶5
AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1909 · Who else cites this
B.Chandrashekar
C.Jayamma
M.Venkata Ramana Reddy
S.Guru Prasad Rao
Ch. Sreenivasulu
The Superintending Engineer, Somasila Project Circle
G.Narendar
Nyapathy Vijay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
