WP/3970/2004 of B.Sangameswar, s/o B.Ramulu, Vs The Government of AP, rep by its Principal Secreetary, on 27 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY

and

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

WRIT PETITION Nos : 3969 and 3970 of 2004

1}WRIT PETITION NO. 3969 OF 2004

Between:

1 B.Sangameswar, s/o B.Ramulu,

Working as Dy.Executive Engineer (PH), Qutubullapur Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.

2 G.Rameswar Rao, s/o Balakistaiah,

Working as General Manager (Own Pay) Project Division-V, Goshamahal, HMWs & SB, Hyderabad.

..... PETITIONERS

AND

1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principle Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Dept., Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad-500 022. Municipal Administration and Urban Development Dept., Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad-500 022.

2 The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health, Kashana A.C.Guards, Hyderabad-500 004.

3 D.Janardhan Reddy, s/o D.Gopal Reddy,

Dy.Executive Engineer, o/o the Superintending Engineer-I, MCH, Tankbund, Hyderabad. Tankbund, Hyderabad.

4 Y.V.Srinivasa Rao, s/o Y.M.V.Ramanaiah, Dy.Executive Engineer, o/o Superintending Engineer-II, MCH, Hyderabad. MCH, Hyderabad.

5 A.Dattatreya, s/o A.Mallaiah,

Dy.Executive Engineer, o/o Superintending Engineer (P), 6th Floor, MCH, Hyderabad.

6 R.Sudhakar, s/o R.Rama Krishna Rao,

Dy.Executive Engineer, o/o Executive Engineer, Circle No.III, Abids, Hyderabad. Abids, Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus a)to declare that the preference given to Post-Graduate qualification to theAsst.Executive Engineers for the purpose of promotion to the Post-GraduateDy.Executive Engineers under THE ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC HEALTH ANDMUNICIPAL ENGINEERING SERVICE RULES issued through G.O.Ms.No.168 MADt.20-02-1965 as amended both under the amendments to the Special Rule issuedthrough G.O.Ms.No.202 Municipal Administration & Urban Development Dept.,dt.14-08-1997 continue to operate. b) The judgment of the Division Bench of thisHon'ble Court dt.12-10-2001 in WP No.23668/2000 {(2002 Supp.(1) ALD 155)} hasto be understood and interpreted that in so far as the preference to Post-GraduateAsst.Executive Engineers for the purpose of Promotion to the post of Dy.ExecutiveEngineers remain unaffected and the Division Bench only struck down thepromotion/transfer of Municipal A.E.E./A.E. to the post of Dy.Executive Engineer inthe A.P.Public Health & Municipal Engineering Service Rules as being violative ofthe provisions of the Presidential orders. c) To declare that the petitioners areentitled to be given preferential treatment for their post-graduate qualification for thepurpose of promotion of Dy.Executive Engineer in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.168MA dt.20-02-1965 as amended both under the amendments to the Special Rulesissued through G.O.Ms.No.202 Municipal Administration & Urban DevelopmentDept., dt.14-08-1997 and be given seniority in the post of Dy.Executive Engineeraccordingly. d) To call for the records connected with the judgment dt.20-02-2004 inO.A.No.10422/2002 of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal set aside the same or orderor orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of thecase.

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.BALA KRISHNA MURTHY

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Government Pleader for Services-I.Counsel for Respondents 3 to 6: Mr. J.R. Manoher Rao

2. WRIT PETITION NO : 3970 of 2004

Between:

1 B.Sangameswar, s/o B.Ramulu, Working as Dy.Executive Engineer (PH), Qutubullapaur Municipality, Ranga Reddy District Qutubullapaur Municipality, Ranga Reddy District

2 G.Rameswar Rao, s/o Balakistaiah, Working as General Manager(own pay) Project Division_V, Ghoshamahal, HMWs & SB, Hyderabad Project Division_V, Ghoshamahal, HMWs & SB, Hyderabad

..... PETITIONERS

AND

1 The Government of AP, rep by its Principal Secreetary, Municipal Administraton & Urban Development Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-500 022

2 The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health, Kashana A.C.Guards, Hyderabad-500

004

3 M.A.Kaleem, s/o M.A.Razzak, Dy. Executive Engineer, P.H.Sub-Division, Water Tank, Medak Road, Siddipet, Medak District

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ ofmandamus a) To declare that the preference given to Post-Graduate qualification tothe Asst. Executive Engineers for the purpose of promotion to the Post-Graduate Dy.Executive Engineers under THE ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC HEALTH ANDMUNICIPAL ENGINEERING SERVICE RULES issued through G.O.Ms.No.168 MAdated 20-02-1965 as amended both under the amendments to the Special Ruleissued through G.O.Ms.No.202 Municipal Administration & Urban DevelopmentDepartment, dated 14-08-1997 continue to operate. b) The Judgment of the DivisionBench of this Hon'ble Court dated 12-10-2001 in W.P. 23668/2000 (2002Supp. (1)ALD 155) has to be understood and interpreted that in so far as the preference toPost-Graduate Asst.Executive Engineers for the purpose of promotion to the post ofDy. Executive Engineers remain unaffected and the Division Bench only struckdown the promotion/ transfer of Municipal A.E.E. / A.E. to the post of Dy. ExecutiveEngineer in the A.P.Public Health & Municipal Engineering Service Rules as beingviolative of the provisions of Presidential Orders. c) To declare that the petitionersare entitled to be given preferred treatment for their post-graduate qualification forthe for the purpose of promotion of Dy. Executive Engineer in accordance withG.O.Ms.No.168 MA dated 20-02-1965 as amended both under the amendments tothe Special Rule issued through G.O.Ms.No.202 Municipal Administration & UrbanDevelopment Department, dated 14-08-1997 and be given seniority in the post ofDy. Executive Engineer accordingly. d) To call for the records connected with thejudgment dated 20-02-2004 in O.A.No.9811 of 2002 of the A.P. AdministrativeTribunal set aside the same or order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fitand proper in the circumstances of the case.

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.BALA KRISHNA MURTHY

Counsel for the Respondent Nos 1 and 2.: GP FOR SERVICES I

Counsel for Respondent No.3: Mr. J.R. Manohar Rao The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER: (PER GB.J)

(1). Both the writ petitions are filed assailing the orders passed by theAndhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, inO.A.Nos.10422 and 9811 of 2002 dated 20.2.2004. The respondents3 to 6 in the writ petition are the applicants before the Tribunal. Thesaid O.A.s were filed for quashing G.O.Ms.No.151 M.A. and U.D.Department dated 4.4.2002.

Conclusion

(2). The matter has a long history. The petitioners were appointed inthe years 1989 and 1992 respectively. They acquired the Post-Graduate qualification in Public Health Engineering (EnvironmentalEngineering). They were initially appointed as junior Engineers nowredesignated as Assistant Executive Engineers. At the relevant time,the Special Rules called “The Andhra Pradesh Public Health andMunicipal Engineering Service Rules” (for brevity ‘the Rules), issuedunder proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution of India, were in vogueand the Rules were framed under G.O.Ms.No.168 M.A. dated20.2.1965. The Rules provided for preferential treatment for thosewho acquired Master of Engineering (Public Health) Degreequalification for promotion from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer. However, theRules were amended in G.O.Ms.No.903, Public Health and MunicipalAdministration Department dated 24.11.1971, deleting thepreferential treatment. Again, the Rules were amended inG.O.Ms.No.328, MA and UD Department dated 10.6.1994,reintroducing the preferential treatment to Post-Graduates, againstthe 9[th] vacancy in the cycle of 12 vacancies. The re-introductionappears to have been resorted to, in wake of existence of similarpreferential provisions in the sister engineering departments like theA.P. Engineering Service, the A.P. Roads and Buildings EngineeringService, and the A.P. Panchayat Raj Engineering Service. InG.O.Ms.No.63 Housing, Municipal Administration & UrbanDevelopment Department dated 8.2.1977, the original rules issued inG.O.Ms.No.168 were amended and fresh cycle was introduced forthe purpose of promotion to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer andfor preferential treatment to the Post-Graduates was conspicuouslyabsent. But, however, the same was re-introduced in G.O.Ms.No.328.Again, the rules were amended in G.O.Ms.No.202 MA & UDDepartment dated 14.8.1997 with retrospective effect from 1977,providing preference to the Post-Graduates against the 9[th] vacancyin the cycle of 12 vacancies.

(3). The petitioners were promoted to the post of Dy. ExecutiveEngineers on 16.3.2000 in pursuance of preference of holding P.G.Engineering Qualification in accordance with 9[th] vacancy underG.O.Ms.No.202. However, the 2[nd] petitioner was further promoted asGeneral Manager (Executive Engineer) on his own pay since 24[th]April, 2002. The amendment issued in G.O.Ms.No.202 was

questioned before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6099 of1997, on the ground that providing a channel to the MunicipalAssistant Executive Engineers/Assistant Engineers appointed underthe service constituted under A.P. Municipalities Act, was repugnantto the provisions of the Presidential Order, more particularly,paragraph (5) of the said Presidential Order. The Tribunal dismissedthe said O.A. When the matter was carried before this court inW.P.NO.23668 of 2000, the Division Bench struck down theamendment through G.O.Ms.No.202 on the ground that providing forpromotion or by transfer for Municipal Assistant ExecutiveEngineers/Assistant Engineers is violative of the provisions of thePresidential Order. It is stated that the issue relating to preferentialtreatment to the Post-Graduate engineers was not in question beforethe Division bench and the same was untouched. However,consequent on the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 2892 of 1992,dated:: 9.4.1996, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.151 dated4.4.2002, directing that the preferential treatment must be given to thepetitioners as per the Special Rules in G.O.Ms.No.168. The Tribunal,however, misconstruing the order of the Division Bench as if theentire G.O. was struck down, allowed the O.A.s and set aside theorder passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.151. In fact, while theunofficial respondents were already promoted as Deputy ExecutiveEngineers later to the petitioners i.e. on 31.3.2000 and 23.8.2000, thepetitioners were promoted on 16.3.2000.

(4). Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the present writpetitions have been preferred by the petitioners.

(5). It is the contention of Mr. P. Balakrishna Murthy, learned counselfor the petitioners, that the Tribunal has thoroughly misconstrued theservice rules, which were amended from time to time. He furthersubmits that the OAs, as filed by the unofficial respondents hereinbefore the tribunal, were not maintainable as they have no locusstandi to file the OAs since they cannot be said to be affected party inany manner. While the petitioners belong to Zone-VI, the unofficialrespondents belong to other zones. The post of Deputy ExecutiveEngineer is a zonal post. Any promotions given in Zone-VI or anyalteration of seniority or other dates cannot be said to give a cause ofaction to the officers working in the other zones. If at all aggrievedpersons are there, they should be only in Zone-VI. Inasmuch asG.O.Ms.No.151 was not challenged by any person working in Zone-VI, the OAs as filed by the unofficial respondents who were borne onthe establishment of other zone, is wholly misconceived and theTribunal ought to have dismissed the OAs on this ground alone.Even on merits also, the learned counsel would submit that givingpreferential treatment for holding higher qualification in service wasapproved by the Supreme Court in number of cases. He refers to thedecision of the Apex Court reported in GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRAPRADESH V. B. DILIP KUMAR ([1.]) and also the decision of theDivision Bench reported in G. GOPAL RAO AND OTHERS V.GOVERNMENT OF A.P. ([2.]). The learned counsel would submit thatthe decision of the Division Bench in W.P.No.23668 of 2000 dated12.10.2001 cannot be said to be completely eliminating thepreferential treatment to the Post-Graduates in Engineering. He alsorefers to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in V.JAGANNATHA RAO AND OTHERS V. STATE OF A.P. AND

OTHERS ([3.]) and also of the Division Bench reported in M.KESAVULU AND OTHERS V. STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS ([4.]), inrespect of the Presidential Order. Therefore, the learned counselwould submit that the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set asideand the G.O.Ms.No.151 has to be restored.

(6). On the other hand, Mr. J.R. Manohar Rao, learned counselappearing for the unofficial respondents, submits that G.O.Ms.No.168had undergone several changes right from year 1965 and since thepreferential treatment given to the Post-Graduate decree holders isno more on the service rules, the petitioners are not entitled for anyrelief and the order of the Tribunal was quite legal and valid. Hefurther stated that under Rule 6 of the Rules issued videG.O.Ms.No.168, preference was given to the Post-Graduates in thematter of appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (presently re-designated as Dy. Executive Engineer). However, the said Rule 6was challenged and the Division bench of this court in W.A.No.324 of1969 struck down the same as unconstitutional. Consequently, theGovernment issued G.O.Ms.No.903 deleting the preferential clausein Rule 6 of A.P. Public Health and Municipal Engineering Services.On 8.2.1977, Rule 3 of the said rules was amended in G.O.Ms.No.63.According to the said amendment, the 4[th] and 8[th] vacancy, out ofcycle of 12 vacancies, are to be filled by direct recruitment from theMunicipal Assistant Engineers. However, further amendment wasissued on 18.6.1994, in G.O.Ms.No.328 substituting the entry againstthe 9[th] vacancy in the table under Rule 3 by providing preference tothe Post-Graduates. Thus, he submits that from 18.6.1994, thepreference was given to the Post-Graduates against 9[th] vacancy in a cycle of 12 vacancies. It is also submitted that Rule 3 of the Ruleswas substituted in G.O.Ms.No.202 and the same was declaredunconstitutional. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, avacuum was created and in view of the judgment of the Tribunal,there is no provision under Rule 3 of the Rules, with regard torecruitment to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer. However, makinghis submissions on G.O.Ms.No.151, the learned counsel wouldsubmit that the Statutory Rule in G.O.Ms.No.903 cannot be cancelledor annulled by virtue of an administrative order passed inG.O.Ms.No.151. He further submits that the order of the Tribunal isquite legal and valid.

(7). Heard the learned counsel on either side at length.

(8). The issue that arises for consideration is whether the orderpassed by the Tribunal is sustainable in law. The first issue thatarises for consideration is whether the unofficial respondents, whofiled the said OAs, have locus standi to file the applications before theTribunal. It is admitted before this court that the unofficial respondentsare borne on the strength of a separate zone, other than Zone-VI,whereas the petitioners are in Zone-VI. The question that calls forconsideration is whether the officers working in other than in Zone-VI,can challenge the orders passed relating to the officers working inZone-VI. The Tribunal dealt with this matter and held that since thenext promotion from the post of Dy. Executive Engineer lies to thepost of Executive Engineer, and hence, the officers working in otherzones have a locus to challenge the said orders. But, in our view, thesaid finding of the Tribunal is not correct. Primarily the lis is anindividual grievance and not public interest litigation. Admittedly, the

post of Dy. Executive Engineer is a zonal post and any benefit givento the officer such as seniority, promotion etc., is confined to the zonallevel as it is a unit for the purpose of promotion or appointment.Simply because the seniority in the zone is taken into considerationfor preparation of combined seniority at the State level, it cannot besaid that whatever benefit is given to an officer in one zone can bechallenged by the officers in other zones. That would create anyamount of anomalous situation and an unending process. Thus, wefind that the principle of locus standi can be invoked in case a personis directly affected, but the same cannot be stretched to a situationwhere an officer may be remotely affected. Let us test by a singleillustration. ‘A’ in Zone-V is senior to ‘B’ in Zone-VI. If ‘A’ is revertedand reduced in seniority in Zone-V as a measure of punishment andif on challenge the punishment is set aside, can it be said that ‘B’ canchallenge the order setting aside the punishments on the ground thatif ‘A’ is restored he would become senior to him. The answer shouldbe in negative. It is not only ‘B’ that does not possess locus standi,but even any other employee in Zone-V can challenge the orders.Therefore, we find that the Tribunal has completely misconstrued thisissue and held against the petitioners herein. Hence, we find that theOAs, as filed by the unofficial respondents in this writ petition, are notmaintainable.

( 9 ) Even considering the merits of the case, we find that thepetitioners were appointed as Assistant Engineers initially and theypossessed the Masters Degree in Public Health Engineering. Whilethe unofficial respondents did not possess the Masters Degree, theyappear to have been appointed earlier to the petitioners, but in adifferent zone. In G.O.Ms.No.168, the preference was given to the Post-Graduates for promotion to the post of Dy. Executive Engineers.However, the said preferential treatment under Rule 6 was struckdown by the Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.324 of 1969 andconsequently it was deleted vide G.O.Ms.No. 903, dated:24.11.1971. But, however, under Rule 3 of the Rules, theappointment to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer shall continue tobe made by the method specified in the table. The said rule wasamended by G.O.Ms.No. 63 dated: 8.2.1977 by which 4[th] and 5[th]vacancy out of cycle of 12 vacancies are to be filled by directrecruitment from Municipal Asst. Engineers. On 18.6.1994amendment was brought in G.O.Ms.No. 328 substituting the entryagainst 9[th] vacancy by providing preference to Post Graduatesagainst 9[th]vacancy. But, however, Rule 3 was substituted byG.O.Ms.No.202 dated 14.8.1997, in which the Municipal and PublicHealth Engineers were made eligible for promotion to the post ofDeputy Executive Engineers, basing on the combined seniority list.But that Rule was struck down by the Division Bench of this court inW.P.No.23668 of 2000.

(10). It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondentsthat consequent on striking down of G.O.Ms.No.202, whichsubstituted the amendment issued to Rule 3, the G.O.Ms.No.328 alsoloses its enforceability, and therefore, the order passed by theTribunal was quite legal and proper.

(11) We are unable to appreciate this contention also. TheLegislature cannot be expected to create a vacuum in the StatutoryRules and as observed by the Supreme Court giving preference tothe candidates having higher qualifications, cannot be said to be

unconstitutional or illegal. As rightly pointed out by the learnedcounsel for the petitioners Mr. P. Balakrishna Murthy, that suchpreferential treatment was given in contemporaneous rules in respectof Engineering service in Irrigation Department and Roads andBuildings Engineering Service, and as such, preferential treatmentwas upheld by the Supreme Court in Dilip Kumar’s case (1 supra)and also by the Division Bench in Gopal Rao’s case (2 supra). It issought to be contended that since the Division Bench of this Courtstruck down G.O.Ms.No.202, there are no rules giving preference tothe Post-Graduates in the matter of promotion. But, it is to be seenthat in G.O.Ms.No.63 dated 8.2.1977, the amendment was broughtcreating cycle of 12 vacancies. The said 12 cycle under Rule 3 of theRules was again substituted in G.O.Ms.No.328 as far as 9[th] cyclewas concerned, which incorporated the following amendment.

“By promotion from the Assistant ExecutiveEngineers/Municipal Assistant Executive Engineerspossessing the Post Graduate Qualification. Preferenceshall be given to the Post Graduate in Public HealthEngineering only when all the other qualifications beingequal. The senior among the said Assistant ExecutiveEngineer/Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer shall beconsidered against this vacancy. If no qualified AssistantExecutive Engineer/Municipal Assistant Executive Engineeris available the said vacancy shall go to the AssistantExecutive Engineers or by recruitment by transfer fromAdditional Assistant Engineers of the Andhra Pradesh PublicHealth and Municipal Engineering Subordinate Service.”(emphasis added)

(12). What was struck down by the Division Bench was that clubbingthe Municipal Assistant Executive Engineers and Assistant Executive Engineers in Public Health was unconstitutional as it is hit byparagraph (5) of the Presidential Order. But the preferential clause inRule 3 as introduced in G.O.Ms.No. 328 was never challenged. Inview of the fact that right from the year 1965, when the Rules wereissued vide G.O.Ms.No.168, preference was being given to the Post-Graduates and subsequent amendments were brought inG.O.Ms.Nos. 903, 63, and 202 having been held as unconstitutional,we have to only hold that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court inDilip Kumar’s case (1 supra), and also of similar decision rendered byDivision Bench of this Court in W.A.No.324 of 1969 (Gopal Rao’scase cited 2 supra), is no more a good law. For the very samereasons, the Government has reviewed the matter and issuedG.O.Ms.No.151.

(13) The Division Bench of this Court of which one of the (PSNJ) wasparty in W.P.NO. 5870 of 2004 and Batch dated: 26.11.2004 heldthat since G.O.Ms.No. 202, dated: 14.8.1997 was struck down by theDivision Bench in W.P.No. 26338 of 2000 and since G.O.Ms.No. 63,dated: 8.2.1977 was substituted by G.O.Ms.No. 202, the formerwould not survive. Therefore, by virtue of Orders passed by both theDivision Benches referred to above, the legal effect would be that thevacancies 4 and 8 in a cycle of 12 vacancies for the post of Dy.Executive Engineer get deleted and it is for the Government toreplenish the cycle by providing appropriate method of appointmentto 4[th] and 8[th] vacancies. But the Orders cannot be said to have theeffect of completely wiping out the method of recruitment under Rule3 to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer. Even according to the petitioners the preferential clause was again inserted vide

petitioners the preferential clause was again inserted vide G.O.Ms.No. 328 for Post Graduates in respect of 9[th] vacancy witheffect from 18.6.1994. The preference which was available underRule 6 is now shifted to Rule 3 in Category 3 relating to Dy. ExecutiveEngineer in respect of 9[th] vacancy. Thus, we find reference to para 6of G.O.Ms.No. 151, dated: 4.4.02 is superfluous and unwarranted.The Tribunal observed that the statutory Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.903 could not be amended by administrative Order and set aside thesaid G.O. But, in view of conclusions we reached, even without anysuch amendments, the petitioners are entitled for promotion as Dy.Executive Engineer under preferential clause provided in G.O.Ms.No.328.

(14). Under the above circumstances, we find that the order of theTribunal in O.A.Nos. 10422 and 9811 of 2002 is not sustainable andthe same stands set aside.

(15). Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.

--------------------------------------

(JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY)

--------------------------------------

(JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA)

Date:27-12-2004

CVM & CHV

L.R. COPY: No.

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon’bleSri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this Monday the Twenty Seventh dayof December Two Thousand and four.

ASST. REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To

1 Principle Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buldings, Hyderabad-500 022.

2 The Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health, Kashana A.C.Guards, Hyderabad-500 004. Hyderabad-500 004.

3. Mr. D. Janardhan Reddy, Dy. Executive Engineer, Office of the Superintending Engineer-I, MCH, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

4. Mr. Y.V. Srinivasa Rao, Dy. Executive Engineer, Office of the Superintending Engineer-II, MCH, Hyderabad.

5. Mr. A. Dattlareya, Dy. Executive Engineer, Office of the SuperintendingEngineer (P), 6[th] Floor, MCH, Hyderabad.

6. Mr. R. Sudhakar, Dy. Executive Engineer, Office of the Executive Engineer,Circle No.III Abids, Hyderabad.

7. Mr. M.A. Kaleem S/o M.A. Razzak, Dy. Executive Engineer, P.H. sub-Division, Water Tank Medak Road, Siddipet, Medak District.

8. 2 CCs to Government Pleader for Services-I, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad.

(OUT).

9. 2 CD copies.

10. One CC to Mr. P. Bala Krishna Murthy, Advocate.