GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ANR. versus Y. SURENDER REDDY

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1021 · Decided: 25-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ANR. 
v. 
Y. SURENDER REDDY 
MAY 25, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, I 950-Artic/e I 36-Jurisdiction under-Exercise 
of-Government challenging the order of High Court-Held: Order of High 
Court had worked itself out with the passing of an order by State Government-
State Government's order superseded by subsequent order of the tribunal 
which is not challenged-Hence relief sought for cannot be granted-
However, in the interest of justice, party permitted to challenge the order 
of tribunal by filing writ petition before the High Court-Administrative 
Tribunal Act, 1985. 
Respondent, an employee of APSRTC filed an application before 
the Administrative Tribunal for issuance of direction to the appellant-
Government to consider his case for appointment as Assistant Motor 
Vehicle Inspector. Tribunal dismissed the application. Respondent filed 
a writ petition. High Court directed the Surplus Manpower Cell to 
sponsor the name of the respondent for appointment since the respondent 
had undergone training. State Government did not implement the order 
passed by High Court. Respondent filed a contempt petition before the 
High Court. During pendency of the contempt petition, appellant filed 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
the instant special leave petition. Thereafter, High Court disposed of the 
contempt petition holding that since the Government had considered the 
F 
case of the respondent and passed an order there was no wilful 
disobedience of the order and the aggrieved respondent could seek 
redressal from the appropriate forum. Thereafter, respondent filed an 
application challenging the Government's order, before the 
Administrative Tribunal which was allowed. This Court granted leave 
prayed for in SLP and stayed the order. 
G 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the absence of the challenge to the judgment dated 
Z6.05.2004 passed by the Tribunal in 0.A. No. 3200/2004, relief cannot 
H 
1021 
1022 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
be granted to the appellants in the instant appeal. The impugned order 
dated 08.08.2003 has worked itself out with the passing of the order 
dated 23.12.2003 by the State Government. That order stands superseded 
in view of the Tribunal's order dated 26.5.2004. Since the order dated 
26.05.2004 has not been challenged, in the interest of justice, appellants 
B 
are permitted to challenge the order of the Tribunal dated 26.5.2004 in 
0.A. No. 3200 of 2004 before the High Court. [1025-D-GI 
1.2. Even though the order was passed on 26.5.2004, the same could 
not be challenged because of the pendency of the appeal in this Court. 
Therefore, the time, if any taken by the appellants to file this appeal 
C 
has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation. (1025-G( 
D 
1.3. It cannot be said that since the similarly placed persons have 
been accommodated and the respondent's case is an isolated one and 
since the appellants have not challenged the tribunal's order dated 
26.5.2004 for the last two years, this Court may not exercise its jurisdiction 
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in favour of the appellants. 
If similarly placed persons have already been accommodated, the State 
may consider the case of the respondent in a sympathetic manner and 
pass appropriate orders accordingly. [1026-8-DJ 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7938 of 
F 
2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.2003 of the High Court of 
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P No. 14645/2000. 
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv., for the Appellants. 
K.V. Vishwanathan, D. Bharat Kumar, Anand and Abhijit Sengupta, 
Advs., for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : The above appeal is directed against 
the final judgment and order dated 8.8.2003 passed by the High Court of 
Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 14645 of 
H 2000 whereby the High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the 
GOVT. OF A.P. v. Y. SURENDER REDDY [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 
1023 
respondent herein with a direction that the Surplus Manpower Cell in Finance 
Department shall consider the case of the writ petitioner for sponsoring his 
name to the Transport Commissioner for being appointed as Assistant Motor 
Vehicles Inspector pending any modifications to the Rules, if required. The 
High Court also directed that this exercise shall be done within a period of 
s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.