A D John Franklin v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Counsel for the petitioner : Shri S.Ramachandra Rao assisted by Shri B.Srinivas 25th April, 2007 Per G.S.SINGHVI, CJ Having failed to persuade the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) to entertain his prayer for ad-interim relief, the petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner joined service in 1996 as Secondary Grade Teacher. In 2002, he was sent on deputation to the Department of BC Welfare and was posted as Hostel Welfare Officer. After about five years, he was repatriated to the parent department. The petitioner challenged his repatriation by filing an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Act’), which has been registered as O.A.No.2148 of 2007. On 18-4-2007, the Tribunal issued notice to the respondents and made it returnable in four weeks.

On the very next day, the petitioner filed this petition for quashing order dated 11-4-2007 and for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to absorb him as Hostel Welfare Officer in the BC Welfare Department. Shri S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal’s failure to pass ad-interim order should be treated sufficient for entertaining the writ petition. He further argued that if the petitioner’s repatriation to the parent department is not stalled, he would suffer irreparable injury. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. In our opinion, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed summarily because, -- i) the petitioner has not produced before the Court, order d a t e d 18-4-2007 passed by the Tribunal and without examining the same, we cannot directly or indirectly pronounce on its legality; ii) since the original application filed by the petitioner questioning the legality of order dated 11-4-2007 passed for his repatriation is pending adjudication, there is no warrant for this Court’s interdiction in the matter, and iii) there is no valid ground or justification to stay the implementation of the decision taken by the respondents to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department.