✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 23 Aug 2006

H.Shivaram v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,, Industries and Commerce (IE) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Ors.

B PRAKASH RAO, RAMESH

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

ORDER: (Per The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) At the request of both the counsel, the main writ petition is taken up for final hearing. The main challenge is against the orders dated

31.3.2006 made in OA No. 1165 with VMA No. 346 of 2006 by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in an application under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. While admitting the writ petition, this court by order dated 30.052006, granted interim order directing that in case the Government intends to effect promotions to the post of Additional Director, it shall be on the basis of seniority in the post of Joint Director. Seeking to vacate the said order, the respondent No.4 filed vacate stay petition in WVMP No. 1013 of 2006. Having regard to the fact that a provisional seniority list in the cadre of Joint Director is prepared and since final seniority list is yet to be prepared, which is said to be pending with the Government and also having regard to the submission of the learned Government Pleader that in these circumstances, the question of effecting promotions does not arise, we record the same and make the interim order dated 30.5.2006 absolute. Consequently, we do not see any reason to vacate the interim order. In these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, without adverting to the merits, to decide the Original Application OA No. 1165 of 2006, as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. ______________ B.Prakash Rao, J. ____________________ Ramesh Ranganathan, J. August 23, 2006 MAS.

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 — s. 19.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 23 Aug 2006. The bench was B PRAKASH RAO, RAMESH.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments