T. MEENA KUMARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Certiorari calling for the records and setting aside the order dated 6-8-2002 of the a. P. Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 172 of 2002 upholding the impugned proceedings dated 30-12-2000 of the 2nd respondent and consequently to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests on par with his juniors w. e. f. 30-12-2000. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Forest Range officer in Visakhapatnam Circle on 7-11-1997. He stood at Sl. No. 151 in the seniority list for promotion to the post of assistant Conservator and the promotions have already been made upto Sl. No. 150. While so, the 2nd respondent herein issued proceedings Rc. No. 1089/99/m1 dated 30-12-2000 promoting his juniors who figure in between Sl. Nos. 152 to 216 in the seniority list, without assigning any reasons for ignoring the case of the petitioner. Therefore, he filed O. A. 2082 of 2001 on the file of the A. P. Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal passed an order on 18-6-2001 directing him to approach the Government seeking for promotion. He made a representation dated 10-7-2001 to the government and other respondents, but, as the respondents did not respond, he again filed O. A. 172 of 2002 before the Tribunal and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. ( 4 ) IT is the main contention of the petitioner that though he was placed at sl. No. 151 in the seniority list, his juniors were given promotion without assigning any reasons for ignoring his case. However, a reading of the impugned order shows that a meeting of the Screening Committee was held on 21-3-2000, 22-3-2000, 23-3-2000 and 28-3-2000 and the Screening Committee in its meeting at para (III) that the case of the petitioner was not considered due to poor record and pendency of disciplinary cases. However, a reading of the impugned order shows that a meeting of the Screening Committee was held on 21-3-2000, 22-3-2000, 23-3-2000 and 28-3-2000 and the Screening Committee in its meeting at para (III) that the case of the petitioner was not considered due to poor record and pendency of disciplinary cases. It was further stated in the counter filed before the Tribunal that the 1st disciplinary case relates to draft article of charges which were issued in Conservator of Forests, visakhapatnam No. 11413/98-M8 dated 3-4-1999 for neglect of duty in executing JEM works and the second disciplinary case pertains to draft article of chargers which were issued in CF, Visakhapatnam no. 1024/98-M8 dated 22-3-1999 for misusing of Government funds and causing enormous waste to the State exchequer and unplanned development of central nursery. Having regard to the said adverse remarks, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the decision of the DPC. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel argued that the disciplinary Committee ought to have adopted the procedure of sealed cover in giving promotion and the Tribunal has failed to consider the said aspect. We are not in agreement with the said contention of the learned counsel for the reason that the tribunal is not the appellate authority over the findings of the Screening Committee and the Tribunal has come to the conclusions basing on the material available on record and the avernments made in the counter. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the order passed by the tribunal. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.