S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner was not a party before the learned Tribunal. He has filed the writ petition upon obtaining the leave of this Court inter alia on the ground that the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal affects him adversely. The writ petition arises out of a common judgment dated 22-12-2000 passed in O. A. Nos. 4143/1999, 223/2000 and 2024/ 2000 by the State Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the original application filed by the 1st respondent herein was allowed. The relevant portion of order reads thus:"for the reasons stated by us, supra, O. A. No. 4143/1999 and 2024/2000 are liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and they are accordingly dismissed. Mr. G. Pundarikakshudu, the Applicant in O. A. No. 223/2000 and Party Respondent in O. A. Nos. 4143/1999 and 2024/2000 is praying to issue a direction to the Director of Employment and Training, A. P. , Hyderabad, to implement the decision of the Government issued in Memo No. 1040/emp. A2/98-7, Labour, Employment Training and Factories Department dated 30. 6. 1999 within a time frame. From the aforesaid Memo dated 30. 6. 1999 we do see that notional promotions were given to the Party Respondents 5 to 7 in O. A. No. 4143/1999 including the applicant in O. A. No. 223/2000 as indicated above. It also reads that the notional promotions given to the above said persons are subject to issue of show-cause notices to the persons who are likely to be affected and later to issue final seniority list and that they should be later absorbed as Training Officers immediately in future arising vacancies in Zone-II. Thus, if show-cause notices were not given so far to the affected parties, the Official respondents are directed to issue show-cause notices to the affected parties within reasonable time and at any rate not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and then issue final seniority list within a period of one month thereafter. The Official respondents are further directed to absorb unofficial respondents 5 to 7 in O. A. No. 4143/1999. including the Applicant in O. A. No. 223/2000 as Training Officers as and when vacancies of such posts do arise in Zone-II. O. A. No. 223/2000 is disposed of with the aforsaid directions. The Official respondents are further directed to absorb unofficial respondents 5 to 7 in O. A. No. 4143/1999. including the Applicant in O. A. No. 223/2000 as Training Officers as and when vacancies of such posts do arise in Zone-II. O. A. No. 223/2000 is disposed of with the aforsaid directions. " ( 2 ) THE 1st respondent herein fifed the original application O. A. No. 223/2000 for issuance of a direction to the State to implement the Memo dated 30-6-1999 issued by the Spl. Chief Secretary to Government, Labour, Hmployment Training and Factories (BMP) Department. The relevant portion of the said Memo dated 30-6-1999 is in the following terms:"7. The Government therefore decided to assign notional seniority to the 3 individuals i. e. Sri C. Pundarikakshudu, Sri A. Radhakrishna and Sri P. Gangadhara Rao, as Maths Instructors in Zone II and also to give notional promotions to the three candidates in question retrospectively from the dates mentioned against their names as Group Intruder (now Training Officer) in terms of the orders issued in G. O. Ms. No. 988, Education, dated 11. 10. 1973 and G. O. Ms. No. 164, Education, dated 6. 7. 1990 as mentioned below:- 1. 6th cycle 34th point Sri G. Pundarikakshudu 6. 3. 1992 2. 7th cycle 40th point Sri A. Radhakrishna 6. 3. 1992 3. 8th cycle 46th point Sri P. Gangadhara Rao 12. 1. 1993 8. The above notional promotion is subject to issue of show-cause notice to the persons who are likely to be affected and to issue final seniority list and also that they should be absorbed as Training Officers immediately in future arising vacancies in Zone-II. " ( 3 ) BY memo dated 30. 6. 1999 it was directed that the 1st respondent herein (Application in O. A. No. 223/2000) and two others be given notional promotions from the date of vacancies which arose in the post of Group Instructor (now Training Officer) upon giving seniority with retrospective effect. It was further directed to issue show-cause notices to the persons who arc likely to be affected and also to absorb them in future arising vacancies in Zone-II. ( 4 ) MR. J. R. Manohar Rao. It was further directed to issue show-cause notices to the persons who arc likely to be affected and also to absorb them in future arising vacancies in Zone-II. ( 4 ) MR. J. R. Manohar Rao. learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken us through the various rules and government orders issued in this regard, in particular, learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the order passed by the learned Tribunal in R. P. No. 366 of 1983 wherein, inter aliu, it was directed thus:" 4 ! laving considered the case from (he point of view of indicated above, we find that the stand taken by the Government is not at all sustainable. Promotion should be given on the basis of the statutory rule as it exists. If the Government wants to amend the rules, it is open to them to do so. But so long the Government is not made, the statutory rule must be given effect to in the matter of promotion and all other connected issues. To this extent, we allow the R. P. and direct the Government to promote the petitioners and other suitable candidates in terms of the existing statutory rules, without supplying the cycle or the rotation inserted thereunder. " ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel would contend that having regard to G. O. Ms. No. 23, dated 24. 6. 1995, the 1st respondent could not have been directed to be promoted in future vacancies in derogation of the rerlevant rules. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, Suit. Tripura Sundari, learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that her client stands on a seperate footing. According to the learned Counsel, in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal itself the 4th vacancy is to be filled by a diploma holder and as the said decision has not been implemented in letter and spirit, representations were made and on the several representations, the aforementioned Memo dated 30. 6. 1999 came to be passed. ( 7 ) THE questions which arise for consideration, having regard to the rival contentions raised are; (i) whether by reason of the said Memo dated 30. 6. 1999 the promotions which were granted as far back as in the year 1976 are sought to be reopened; (ii) whether the promotions could be directed to be given in derogation of G. O. Ms. 6. 1999 the promotions which were granted as far back as in the year 1976 are sought to be reopened; (ii) whether the promotions could be directed to be given in derogation of G. O. Ms. No. 23 which came into effect from 24. 6. 1995; (iii) in any event, if notional seniority and notional promotion had been granted, whether any direction can be issued to abosrb the 1st respondent and persons similarly situated in future vacancies although they are holding a post in a lower category and not in the feeder category; and (iv) in any event, whether the State having pre-determined the issue, any fruitful purpose would be served by directing to issue show-cause notices to the persons likely to be affected. ( 8 ) NORMALLY, this Court would not have interfered with the matter, keeping in view the fact that the contentions raised by the petitioner herein could be raised before the State itself, but from the tenor of Paragraph 7 of the Memo dated 30. 6. 1999, it appears that a decision has been already taken by the Government to assign notional seniority to three individuals mentioned therein against vacancies 6th, 7th and 8th cycle. A bare persual of the entire memo dated 30. 6. 1999 clearly suggests that issuance of show-cause notice is a mere formality. The State, evidently, pre-determined the decision and as such, it is not expected that the writ petitioner would have a fair deal at the hands of the respondents. In any event, as has been observed by the Apex Court in K. I. Shephard v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 686 , it is a common experience that once a decision had been taken, ther is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid dicta of the Apex Court, we are of the opinion that no purpose would be sub-served unless the petitioner and/or any other person (s) who may be substantially interested in the subject matter of the dispute are heard. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal to consider the matter afresh. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner be impfeaded as respondent in O. A. No. 223/ 2000. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal to consider the matter afresh. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner be impfeaded as respondent in O. A. No. 223/ 2000. Mr J. R. Manohar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file counter-affidavit within two weeks, reply and rejoinder, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter. All contentions are kept open. ( 11 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.