ORDER : 1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to issue orders re-designating him as Head of Section, as per the orders dated 28.3.2016 and 30.3.2016 passed in an application for review in Review M.A. No. 366 of 2016 in O.A. No. 5035 of 2016 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. Heard Mr. V. Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I (Telangana) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 3. The petitioner originally joined service in the Government Polytechnic, Nalgonda, way back in the year 1982. According to the petitioner, he was re-designated as Senior Lecturer with effect from 26.02.1997. At the time of appointment, the petitioner was holding only a Diploma in Engineering. Subsequently, he seems to have acquired a Degree and Post-Graduate Degree in Engineering. 4. The petitioner filed an application in O.A. No. 5035 of 2015 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal with a short grievance that after placing him at serial No. 1 in the Seniority List of Senior Lecturers, in two successive Seniority Lists dated 28.3.2013 and 05.5.2015, his name was wrongly omitted in tentative and final seniority lists released on 31.7.2015 and 22.8.2015. The prayer of the petitioner in the application O.A. No. 5035 of 2015 was to set aside a Circular Memo dated 22.8.2015 and to include his name in the Seniority List of Senior Lecturers in the panel year 2014-15 and to consider his case for promotion to the post of Head of Section. 5. While ordering notice in the original application, the Tribunal granted an interim order on 07.9.2015, directing the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Head of Section in the existing vacancies in the Electrical and Electronics Engineering in Government Polytechnics along with others as per the original Seniority Lists dated 28.3.2013 and 05.5.2015. 6. Pursuant to the said interim order, the respondents issued a Memo dated 13.11.2015, restoring the position of the petitioner to position No. 1 in the Seniority List of Senior Lecturers, along with an indication that such restoration was subject to the final orders to be passed in the original application. 7. 6. Pursuant to the said interim order, the respondents issued a Memo dated 13.11.2015, restoring the position of the petitioner to position No. 1 in the Seniority List of Senior Lecturers, along with an indication that such restoration was subject to the final orders to be passed in the original application. 7. Eventually, the original application O.A. No. 5035 of 2015 came up for hearing along with a petition filed by the Government for vacating the interim directions. Unfortunately either for the petitioner or for the respondents or for both, the original application was closed by the Tribunal by an order dated 17.02.2016, on the sole ground that by virtue of the interim order, the petitioners seniority had been restored. The operative portion of the final order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 5035 of 2015 reads as follows: “5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in pursuance of the interim order of this Tribunal, the respondents through Memo No. G/8572/2015 dated 13.11.2015 issued final seniority list of lecturers in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Government Polytechnic College whereunder the applicants name is included at S. No. 1 and in view of the same, no cause of action survives in this O.A.” 8. In other words without adjudication, the petitioner thought or the respondents thought that the petitioner had succeeded with the implementation of an interim order passed by the Tribunal. But soon the clouds got cleared and the petitioner realised that this was not what he wanted. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application for review of the order passed in O.A. No. 5035 of 2015. At least when the petitioner filed an application for review, he must have sought adjudication of the dispute on merits. But instead, the petitioner filed Review M.A. No. 366 of 2016, with a limited prayer to direct the respondents to grant a consequential benefit of promotion to the post of Head of Section. The Tribunal allowed the review application by an order dated 28.3.2016, holding that once the benefit of seniority has been granted, promotion should follow as a matter of consequence. Paragraphs-4 and 5 of the order of the Tribunal passed in Review M.A. No. 366 of 2016 read as follows: “4. The Tribunal allowed the review application by an order dated 28.3.2016, holding that once the benefit of seniority has been granted, promotion should follow as a matter of consequence. Paragraphs-4 and 5 of the order of the Tribunal passed in Review M.A. No. 366 of 2016 read as follows: “4. When once the name of the applicant is included at S. No. 1 in final seniority list of lecturers in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Government Polytechnic College, there is no need for a specific direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion. If the name of the applicant is included in the seniority list, that too at S. No. 1, it implies that the department is supposed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Head of Section. 5. However, the Review Miscellaneous Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Head of Section as per his seniority in the final seniority list of lecturers in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Government Polytechnic College vide Memo No. G/8572/2015 dated 13.11.2015.” 9. After the said order dated 28.3.2016, a corrigendum was also issued by the Tribunal on 30.3.2016. In the order dated 28.3.2016 passed in the review application, the Tribunal mentioned the post of Lecturers instead of Senior Lecturers. This was corrected by the corrigendum dated 30.3.2016. 10. Contending that the order passed in the review application was not complied with, the petitioner filed a contempt petition in C.A. No. 351 of 2016. 11. Thereafter, the Government passed G.O.Ms. No. 10, Higher Education (TE) Department, dated 18.5.2016, accepting the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting on 23.4.2016 and approving the names of persons whose names were shown in the Government Order for promotion to the post of Head of Section in the Technical Education Department. Though the name of the petitioner was found at serial No. 3 under the Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department, in the table in G.O.Ms. No. 10, dated 18.5.2016, it was indicated against his name that promotion shall be deferred till verification by the Department about his status of Lecturer/Senior Lecturer. 12. Challenging the qualified inclusion of his name in G.O.Ms. Though the name of the petitioner was found at serial No. 3 under the Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department, in the table in G.O.Ms. No. 10, dated 18.5.2016, it was indicated against his name that promotion shall be deferred till verification by the Department about his status of Lecturer/Senior Lecturer. 12. Challenging the qualified inclusion of his name in G.O.Ms. No. 10, dated 18.5.2016, the petitioner filed a fresh application in O.A. No. 1914 of 2016 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. In the said application, the Tribunal passed an interim order on 01.6.2016 directing the respondents not to fill up the existing vacancy of Head of Section in the Electrical and Electronics Engineering in Government Polytechnic, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 13. Subsequently, the Government of Telangana withdrew from the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and hence O.A. No. 1914 of 2016 got transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. (TR) No. 5944 of 2017. This writ petition was later withdrawn by the petitioner and hence it was dismissed on 29.6.2017 as withdrawn. 14. The consequence of the petitioner withdrawing W.P. (TR) No. 5944 of 2017 (previously O.A. No. 1914 of 2016) was that the challenge to G.O.Ms. No. 10, dated 18.5.2016, stands withdrawn as on date. 15. After approaching the Tribunal with a contempt application that the order passed in the review application had not been complied with, after approaching the Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 1914 of 2016 challenging the qualified inclusion of his name for promotion and after having withdrawn the challenge to such qualified inclusion, the petitioner had also come up with the above writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the orders of the Tribunal passed in Review M.A. No. 366 of 2016. 16. The facts that we have narrated would show the following indisputable things: (i) That in the first original application O.A. No. 5035 of 2015 filed by the petitioner, there was no adjudication on merits. The Tribunal did not find on merits that the petitioner was entitled to the reliefs sought. The Tribunal gave an interim direction to restore his position in the Seniority List of Senior Lecturers. This order was complied with by the Department, with a qualifying statement that such restoration will be subject to the final outcome of the original application. The Tribunal did not find on merits that the petitioner was entitled to the reliefs sought. The Tribunal gave an interim direction to restore his position in the Seniority List of Senior Lecturers. This order was complied with by the Department, with a qualifying statement that such restoration will be subject to the final outcome of the original application. (ii) Therefore, the petitioner ought to have invited an order on merits in the main application O.A. No. 5035 of 2015, without getting it closed, pursuant to the implementation of the interim order. (iii) We are not suggesting for a moment that the petitioner alone was to blame. But we cannot say that except the petitioner, everyone else was to blame for the original application getting closed by the Tribunal. (iv) Having woken up to the fact that the original application was closed in a manner not favourable to him, the petitioner rightly filed a review application in Review M.A. No. 366 of 2016. But unfortunately, he did not seek a review of the original order on the ground that he wanted adjudication on merits. All that he sought in the review application was the grant of additional benefit over and above that he got by virtue of the interim order earlier passed and which got implemented. This review application was allowed by the Tribunal, as though there was adjudication on merits on the question of seniority and hence the consequential benefit should follow. (v) We have already extracted the operative portion of the order passed in Review M.A. No. 366 of 2016. It could be seen from paragraph-5 of the order passed in review application that all that the Tribunal did was to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. There is a distinction between a positive mandamus to promote and a mandamus to consider the case of a person for promotion. The Tribunal did not issue a positive mandamus to promote. It issued a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. (vi) Therefore, the order of the Tribunal passed in the review application was implemented, in a manner that they understood, by the Government under G.O.Ms. No. 10, dated 18-5-2016, including the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion, subject to the condition that his status had to be verified. (vi) Therefore, the order of the Tribunal passed in the review application was implemented, in a manner that they understood, by the Government under G.O.Ms. No. 10, dated 18-5-2016, including the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion, subject to the condition that his status had to be verified. (vii) The moment a consideration was made by the Government and a conclusion reached rightly or wrongly, under G.O.Ms. No. 10, dated 18.5.2016, the order passed by the Tribunal in Review M.A. No. 366 of 2016 worked itself out. Therefore, the question of a mandamus directing the Government to implement the order passed in Review M.A. No. 366 of 2016 does not arise, after the order having been implemented rightly or wrongly. (viii) As a matter of fact, the petitioner has understood this legal position very well. That is why instead of coming with a writ petition for enforcement of the order of the Tribunal first, the petitioner challenged G.O.Ms. No. 10, dated 18.5.2016, by way of O.A. No. 1914 of 2016. Having challenged the manner, let us assume the wrongful manner, in which the order of the Tribunal in Review M.A. No. 366 of 2016 was understood by the Government, the petitioner ought not to have withdrawn the original application after it was transferred to this Court in W.P. (TR) No. 5944 of 2017. By challenging the order passed rightly or wrongly pursuant to the order of the Tribunal and by withdrawing such a challenge, the petitioner has lost his right to seek implementation of the order in Review M.A. No. 366 of 2016. 17. To put it simply, the prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to implement the order of the Tribunal in Review M.A. No. 366 of 2016. But this order of the Tribunal has already been implemented rightly or wrongly under G.O.Ms. No. 10, dated 18.5.2016. The petitioner had already challenged G.O.Ms. No. 10, dated 18.5.2016 and withdrawn the challenge later. Therefore, there can be no mandamus issued for enforcing the order of the Tribunal which has already been implemented, to the best of their understanding by the respondents. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Having said that, it should be clarified that all the doors are not shut for the petitioner, at least for litigation, if not for promotion. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Having said that, it should be clarified that all the doors are not shut for the petitioner, at least for litigation, if not for promotion. The Government appears to have passed an order dated 02.02.2017 rejecting his case on the ground that his status was only that of a Lecturer governed by State Scales of Pay and that he was not a Senior Lecturer. 18. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the said order of the Government dated 02.02.2017, the writ petition is dismissed. We also make it clear that we have not pronounced any opinion on the merits or the entitlement of the petitioner, but simply pointed out that the procedure so far adopted, was not, one that could have granted the relief sought for by the petitioner. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.