ORDER : (A.V. Sesha Sai, J.) 1. Third parties to O.A.Nos.12273 of 2010 and batch on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal are the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions. This Court deems it appropriate to treat W.P.No.11000 of 2013 as a lead case. 2. In W.P.No.11000 of 2013, challenge is to the order dated 24.11.2011, passed by the Tribunal, allowing O.A.No.12273 of 2010. Respondent No.3 in the writ petition, by invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Act’) filed O.A.No.12273 of 2010, seeking the following relief: “Application filed under the section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 praying this Tribunal to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the applicant for promotion to the post Deputy Executive Engineer by fixing the seniority in the Cadre of Assistant Engineer by effecting promotion notionally to the said post as per the ratio fixed among the Direct Recruitees and Promotees for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer prescribed in the Rules by taking into consideration of the Judgment passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1019 to 1023/1991 dated 02.12.1998 and not finalizing the seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Engineers though Draft Final Seniority List of AEEs was issued by the 1st respondent on 15.01.2009 calling for objections and not finalizing the objections dt.06.02.2009 made by the applicant before effecting promotions to the post of Deputy executive Engineers in Zone-IV as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and contrary to the rules and consequently direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the objections filed by the applicant dt.06.02.2009 before effecting promotions to the post of Deputy Executive Engineers and consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer as per seniority and as per A.P, R & B Engineering Subordinate Service Rules.” 3. The Tribunal by way of an order dated 24.11.2011, allowed the Original Application, declaring that the applicant be entitled for notional promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer from the date on which 29 work Inspectors Grade–I were promoted to the posts of Assistant Engineers as per the orders of the Government, vide Memo dated 10.12.1991, wherein the State Government accorded permission to fill up the said posts with all consequential benefits and the Tribunal also declared that the applicant would be entitled for further promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer without any monetory benefits. As against the said order, the present W.P.No.11000 of 2013 came to be instituted by third parties with the leave of the Court. A Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 12.04.2013 in W.P.M.P.No.13614 of 2013, suspended the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal. 4. Heard Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services for the official respondents and Sri P.Lakshman Raju and K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents. 5. Contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners: 1) Orders impugned in the Writ Petition, passed by the Tribunal are highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the basic principles of service jurisprudence. 2) Orders of the Tribunal are contrary to G.O.Ms.No.904 PWD dated 01.08.1973 i.e., A.P.Roads and Buildings Engineering Subordinate Service Rules R/w G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14.02.1992. 3) The Tribunal failed to see that the notification issued vide G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14.02.1992, accepting the proposal of Engineer-in-Chief (R & B) parse is required to be treated as amendment to G.O.Ms. No.904 PWD dated 01.08.1973 and that the same created the ratio of 5:3:2 amongst direct recruitees, Draughtsmen and Work Inspectors. 4) Publication of amendment in the gazette is only a Ministerial Act and the Rules prescribing the ratio shall be deemed to have been amended in view of the G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14.02.1992. 5) As long as G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14.02.1992 is not declared to be void or illegal and as the applicants did not assail the same, the Tribunal erred in passing the impugned orders. 6) Pursuant to the notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in 1992, 45 Draughtsman Grade-II were promoted as Assistant Engineers and as per G.O.Ms.No.904 PWD dated 01.08.1973, the ratio provided for direct recruitees and Draughtsman being 3:1. 6) Pursuant to the notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in 1992, 45 Draughtsman Grade-II were promoted as Assistant Engineers and as per G.O.Ms.No.904 PWD dated 01.08.1973, the ratio provided for direct recruitees and Draughtsman being 3:1. Therefore, out of 149 vacancies of Assistant Engineers, the posts available for Draughtsman were 37 only i.e., 25%. G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14.02.1992 prescribed ratio of 5:3:2, i.e., 5 posts for direct recruitees, 3 posts for Draughtsman Grade-II and 2 posts for Work Inspectors, as such, the number of posts earmarked for Draughtsman as per G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14.02.1992, were increased to 30% as against 25% prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.904 PWD dated 01.08.1973. Therefore, the question of notional promotion of the applicants in the Original Applications would not arise as the promotional quota stood exhausted. 7) The Tribunal ought to have seen that 29 Work Inspectors were promoted vide Government orders in the year 1991-1992 at the cost of direct recruitees. Therefore, these 29 Work Inspectors were not entitled to be promoted and the same would be available for direct recruitees only. 8) The Tribunal failed to see that the applicants in O.A.Nos.12273 of 2009 and batch were promoted as Draughtsman Grade-II in the year 1995 and that the Draughtsman Grade-III would be entitled for promotion as Assistant Engineers only in the event of non-availability of Grade-II and that by relevant time there were Grade-II Draughtsman. 9) Objections of applicants dated 06.02.2009, were rejected by the Engineer-in-Chief vide Memo dated 19.07.2011, prior to disposal of the Original Applications, as such, Original Applications should have been dismissed as Infructuous. The Tribunal granted relief beyond the relief sought in the Original Applications. 6. To bolster his submissions and contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners takes the support of the following judgments: 1. (1998) 4 SCC 114 2. (2011) 9 SCC 645 3. (2019) 16 SCC 28 4. (2006) 10 SCC 346 5. (1999) 3 SCC 587 7. Contentions/submissions of the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents: 1) Applicants along with certain others, who were working as Draughtsman Grade-III filed O.A.Nos.1560 to 1604 of 1991 before the Tribunal for a direction to the respondents not to give effect to G.O.Ms.470 T, R & B Department dated 22.10.1990, unless they exhaust the available departmental candidates for giving promotions as Assistant Engineers and not to fill up the promotional posts by direct recruitment either temporarily or permanently. The Tribunal vide order dated 03.12.1998, disposed of the said Original Applications, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants for promotion to post of Assistant Engineers in accordance with the ratio of 3:1, amongst the direct recruitees and promotes for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers prescribed in Andhra Pradesh Roads and Buildings Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, issued vide G.O.Ms.No.904 dated 01.07.1973. 2) Applicants were promoted as Assistant Engineers by the respondent No.1 in the year 1999 and they possess the diploma in LME and LCE and eligible for the post of Assistant Engineers in the quota reserved for Draughtsman Grade-III as per 3:1 ratio. 3) Applicants were promoted as Assistant Engineers in the year 1999, instead of considering their cases for promotion to the said post in the year 1992. 4) One Sri K.Dhanunjay Raju, who was appointed as Work Inspector on 17.10.1980, was promoted as Work Inspector Grade-I in the year 1990 and further promoted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1992, as per the ratio fixed in the G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14.02.1992. 5) Applicants were eligible for the post of Assistant Engineers as per the Statuary Rules in force prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14.02.1992, which are executive instructions. 6) Special Rules were notified vide G.O.Ms.No.58 dated 01.05.2002, but Sri K.Dhanunjay Raju, who was Junior to the applicants and who was a Work Inspector was promoted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1992, as per G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14.02.1992 and further promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer vide proceedings of respondent No.1 dated 26.06.2007. 7) Respondent No.1 issued a draft seniority list of Assistant Engineers, showing the applicants as juniors and they submitted objections on 06.02.2009 and the applicants were eligible to be promoted as Deputy Executive Engineers even in the year 1994 itself. 8) Official respondents grossly erred in following G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14.02.1992, overlooking the Statuary Rules which prescribed 3:1 ratio. 9) Applicants assailed order of rejection dated 19.07.2011 in O.A.No.6501 and 6502 of 2011 and vide order dated 25.08.2015, the said Original Applications were closed. 8. In the above background, now the issues that emerge for consideration of this Court are as follows: 1. Whether the order of the Tribunal, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case is sustainable and tenable? 2. 8. In the above background, now the issues that emerge for consideration of this Court are as follows: 1. Whether the order of the Tribunal, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case is sustainable and tenable? 2. Whether the order of the Tribunal warrants any interference of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 9. According to the writ petitioners, they were directly recruited as Assistant Engineers in the year 1995, in the Roads & Buildings Department, pursuant to the notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and they passed the requisite departmental tests and were promoted as Deputy Executive Engineers in the year 2008 and are due to be promoted as Executive Engineers. Recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers in the Department was initially governed by Andhra Pradesh Roads & Buildings Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, notified vide G.O.Ms.No.904 PWUD dated 01.08.1973. As per Rule 2 of the said Rules, appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (the then Assistant Engineer) was by the following modes: a) Direct recruitment and b) I) promotion from Civil Draughtsman Grade-I, II, III and II) Overseas, in the ratio of 3:1, between the direct recruits and promotes. 10. Rule 7 of the said Rules prescribed the qualifications for holding the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Assistant Engineer) by direct recruitment and promotion from overseer post appointed under erstwhile Hyderabad Government. But the same did not specify any qualification for Draughtsman. Vide letter dated 26.08.1981, the Engineer-in-Chief (R & B) made a request to the Government to amend the Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.904 PWUD dated 01.08.1973 and to make a provision for ratio among direct recruitment, Draughtsmen Grade-II and Work Inspectors as 5:3:2 respectively, on par with Irrigation Command Area Development Department. Accepting the said request/proposal of the Engineer-in-Chief, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.30 T, (R & B) Department dated 14.02.1992 and directed that the post of Assistant Engineers in R & B Department be filled up by direct recruitment, by promotion from the category of Draughtsman Grade-II and by promotion from the category of Work Inspectors Grade-I in the ratio of 5:3:2. In the said orders, Government directed that the said orders would take immediate effect and the said orders also indicated that necessary amendments in the special Rules are to be made separately. In the said orders, Government directed that the said orders would take immediate effect and the said orders also indicated that necessary amendments in the special Rules are to be made separately. Subsequent to G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14.02.1992, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission issued a notification for appointment of 149 Assistant Engineers in R & B Department in Zone-IV. In accordance with the ratio directed to be followed under G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14.02.1992, out of 149 vacancies, appointment by way of promotion was effected to the category of Assistant Engineers for 50 vacancies from the categories of Draughtsman Grade-II and Work Inspector Grade-I. As mentioned supra, writ petitioners were appointed as Assistant Engineers in the year 1995, pursuant to the same notification of the Public Service Commission against 50% quota allotted for direct recruitment as per G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14.02.1992. The Government of Andhra Pradesh framed the Andhra Pradesh Roads and Buildings Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 2002 and notified the same vide G.O.Ms.No.58 T, R & B (SER-I) Department dated 01.05.2002. The post of Assistant Engineer falls under category (1) of Clause-A of Rule 2 of the said Rules. Rule 3 of the said Rules deals with method of appointment and the appointing authority and to the extent of post of Assistant Engineer, the same reads as follows: 1) By direct recruitment. 2) By promotion of Draughtsman Grade-II. If no qualified Draughtsman Grade-II is available, by promotion of Draughtsman Grade-III and if no Draughtsman Grade-III is available, by promotion of Tracer. 3) By appointment by direct recruitment of Work Inspectors Grade-I with 10 years of which 3 years shall be as Work Inspector Grade-I. If no qualified Work Inspector Grade-I is available for appointment it shall be filled by qualified Work Inspector with 10 years service and if no qualified Work Inspector Grade-II is available, by appointment of Work Inspector Grade-III with 10 years service. If Work Inspector Grade- III is not available, Work Inspector Grade-IV with 10 years service. 4) If no qualified or suitable candidate is available for appointment by methods specified in items (2) & (3) above, by direct recruitment as specified in item (1) above, such direct recruitment will be in addition to the direct recruitment referred to at item (1) above. 11. The appointing authority as per Rule 3 is the Deputy Engineer-in-Chief (R & B). 11. The appointing authority as per Rule 3 is the Deputy Engineer-in-Chief (R & B). Note (1) (a) and (b) of the said Rules speaks of the ratio between direct recruitment and promotion in the following manner. a) In regard to direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer [category (i) of clause-A], 50% of the number of substantive vacancies in the category of Assistant Engineer shall be filled by direct recruitment. b) The vacancies other than to be filled by direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer referred to in Note (1)(a) above, shall be filled by promotion of Draughtsman Grade-II, if no qualified Draughtsman Grade-II is available, by Draughtsman Grade-III and if no qualified Draughtsman Grade-III is available, by promotion of qualified Tracer and c) By direct recruitment of Work Inspector Grade-I (if no qualified Work Inspector Grade-I is available, by Work Inspector Grade-II and if no qualified Work Inspector Grade-II is available, by Work Inspector Grade-III and if no qualified Work Inspector Grade-III is available, by Work Inspector Grade-IV). In the ratio of 3:2 and the seniority to be reckoned as per Rule 33 of the Andhra Pradesh State Subordinate Service Rules. 12. Therefore, according to these Rules notified vide G.O.Ms.No.58 dated 01.05.2002, the ratio among direct recruitees, Draughtsman Grade-II, III and Work Inspectors being 5:3:2. 13. Vide circular Memo No.47079/SER.V(1)/Zone- IV/1995 dated 15.01.2009, the Engineer-in-Chief (R & B) (Admin), respondent No.2 issued a draft final seniority list of Assistant Engineers, covering the batches from Draughtsman/Work Inspectors promoted as Assistant Engineers (R & B) during the year 1992, the Assistant Engineer selected by APPSC and allotted vide their letter No.1855/HD/93, dated 15.06.1994, Draughtsman/Work Inspector promoted as Assistant Engineers during the year 1998-1999, the Assistant Engineers selected by APPSC limited recruitment 2000, Draughtsman/Work Inspectors promoted as Assistant Engineers during the year 2002, Draughtsman/Work Inspectors promoted as Assistant Engineers during the year 2004-2006 and Assistant Engineers selected by APPSC under general recruitment 2006, allotted vide APPSE Lr.Nos.1211/Rs/14/2004, dated 11.07.2006. The Engineer-in-Chief also called for objections vide Memo dated 15.01.2009 within 15 days for further final draft seniority list. In response to the said seniority list, certain persons filed objections and questioning the inaction in considering the objections, O.A.Nos.12272, 12273, 12274 and 12275 of 2009 were filed before the Tribunal and the writ petitioners were admittedly not shown as parties to the said Original Applications. In response to the said seniority list, certain persons filed objections and questioning the inaction in considering the objections, O.A.Nos.12272, 12273, 12274 and 12275 of 2009 were filed before the Tribunal and the writ petitioners were admittedly not shown as parties to the said Original Applications. The said Original Applications came to be filed for the following relief: “…to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the applicant for promotion to the post Deputy Executive Engineer by fixing the seniority; in the Cadre of Assistant Engineer by effecting promotion notionally to the said post as per the ratio fixed among the Direct Recruitees and Promotees for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer prescribed in the Rules by taking into consideration of the Judgment passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1560 to 1604/1991 dated 03.12.1998 and not finalizing the seniority list in the cadre of Assistant Engineers though Draft Final Seniority List of AEEs was issued by the 1st respondent on 15.01.2009 calling for objections and not finalizing the objections dt.06.02.2009 made by the applicant before effecting promotions to the post of Deputy Executive Engineers in Zone-IV as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and contrary to the rules and consequently direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the objections filed by the applicant dt.06.02.2009 before effecting promotions to the post of Deputy Executive Engineers and consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer as per seniority and as per A.P. R & B Engineering Subordinate Service Rules…” 14. The said Original Applications came to be allowed vide common order dated 24.11.2011 and the operative portion of the said order reads as follows: “So, the applicants are entitled for notional promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers from the date on which the 29 Work Inspectors Grade-I were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers as per the orders of the Government vide Memo dated 10.12.1991, wherein the Government has accorded permission to fill up those posts with all consequential benefits and they are also entitled for further promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineers, but no monetary benefits shall be granted. The O.As are accordingly allowed.” 15. Applicants in the aforesaid Original Applications are the Assistant Engineers and Draughtsman. The O.As are accordingly allowed.” 15. Applicants in the aforesaid Original Applications are the Assistant Engineers and Draughtsman. Pending the said Original Applications, Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Memo No.13932/Ser.II.2/2009-6 dated 23.12.2010, requesting the respondent No.2-Engineer-in-Chief to take immediate necessary action on the objections dated 06.02.2009, filed by the applicants in O.A.Nos.12272 of 2009 and batch, in respect of the provisional seniority dated 15.01.2009, before effecting promotions to the post of Deputy Executive Engineers in Zone.IV, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.904 Transport, Roads & Buildings Department dated 01.08.1978, duly following the procedure as per Rules in force. On the ground that the said Memo dated 23.12.2010 came to be issued, totally ignoring G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14.02.1992 and that they would lose their seniority in the category of Assistant Engineers, the petitioners submitted their objections to the respondent No.2- Engineer-in-Chief and thereafter writ petitioners filed O.A.No.2958 of 2011, to declare the Memo dated 23.12.2010 of the respondent No.2 as illegal. 16. In the said O.A.No.2958 of 2011, Sri B.Prasad and Sri N.V.Srinivasulu, who were the applicants in O.A.Nos.12272 of 2009 and 12273 of 2009, were arrayed as respondent Nos.3 and 4. In the said O.A.No.2958 of 2011, the Tribunal on 29.04.2011 passed the following Interim order: “Pending disposal of the O.A, the applicants are directed to make objections to the Memo No.13932/Ser.II.2/2009-6 dated 23.12.2010, issued by the 1st respondent by duly raising their objections, drawing attention of the respondent authorities to the subsequent amendment issued in G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 14.2.1992. The respondents are directed to consider the objections of the applicants and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Post this matter along with O.A.No.12272/2009, 12273/2009, 12274/2009 and 12275/2009.” 17. According to the writ petitioners, they submitted their detailed objections. Pending O.A.No.12272 of 2009 and batch, the respondent No.2 vide Memo No.13084/SER.IV (3)/2009 dated 19.07.2011, rejected the objections of the applicants in the said Original Applications. The principal contention of the writ petitioners is that without reference to pendency of O.A.No.2958 of 2011, filed by the writ petitioners and the order dated 29.04.2011, passed therein and the Memo dated 19.07.2011 of the respondent No.2, rejecting the objections of the applicants in O.A.No.12272 of 2009 and batch, the Tribunal passed the impugned orders in the present Writ Petitions. The present Writ Petitions came to be filed on 19.03.2012. 18. The present Writ Petitions came to be filed on 19.03.2012. 18. The information available before this Court, in vivid and candid terms, discloses that the State Government vide Memo.No.436/S.II(1)/90-16 dated 10.12.1991, on the proposals made by the Engineer-in-Chief (R & B) to fill up 149 vacancies of Assistant Engineers, requested the Engineer-in-Chief to fill up the posts of Assistant Engineers as per Rule 2 (a) of the A.P.Engineering Subordinate Service Rules from Draughtsman and Tracers, pending direct recruitment after arriving at correct number of vacancies. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.30 T, (R & B) Department dated 14.02.1992, directing that the post of Assistant Engineers be filled up by direct recruitment, by promotion from Draughtsman Grade-II and by promotion from the category of Work Inspectors Grade-I in the ratio of 5:3:2. 19. Obviously, in accordance with the said ratio, 29 posts of Assistant Engineers were filled up by promoting Work Inspector Grade-I in the year 1992-1993. Though, such promotions were effected during the year 1992-1993, the applicants in the present Original Applications, who were then Draughtsman, did not assail the said promotions nor they raised any objection till the year 2009 and for the first time on 06.02.2009, they raised their objections, after issuing the provisional seniority list of Assistant Engineers on 15.01.2009. It is very much evident that for a long period of 17 years, applicants maintained absolute and unexplained slumber/silence. It is significant to note that after filing such objections dated 06.02.2009, the applicants filed O.A.Nos.12272, 12273 and 12275 of 2009, for a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of their objections dated 06.02.2009, before effecting promotions to the post of Deputy Executive Engineers. The Tribunal on 01.12.2009, in the said Original Applications passed an interim order, directing to consider and dispose of the objections filed against the provisional seniority list dated 15.01.2009, before proceeding with promotions to the post of Deputy Executive engineers in Zone IV and to pass appropriate orders within two weeks. It is pertinent to note in this context that Engineer-in-Chief/respondent No.2 herein vide Memo.No.13084/Ser.IV(3)/2009 dated 19.07.2011, rejected the claim of the applicants. Though the said rejection order dated 19.07.2011 was very much in existence as on the date of disposal of the Original Applications on 24.11.2011, nobody did bring the same to the notice of the Tribunal and admittedly the applicants did not implead the persons likely to be affected. Though the said rejection order dated 19.07.2011 was very much in existence as on the date of disposal of the Original Applications on 24.11.2011, nobody did bring the same to the notice of the Tribunal and admittedly the applicants did not implead the persons likely to be affected. But the applicants filed O.A.Nos.6051 of 2011 & 6052 of 2011 against the said Memo and the Tribunal vide order dated 25.08.2015, closed the Original Applications subject to outcome of the present Writ Petitions. 20. The State Government vide Memo.No.436/S.II(1)/90- 16 dated 10.12.1991, accorded permission to fill up 149 posts of Assistant Engineers. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.30, T, (R & B) Services.II (2) Department dated 14.02.1992, accepting the proposal of Engineer-in-Chief and issued the instructions to fill up the posts of Assistant Engineers by direct recruitment, promotion from Draughtsman Grade-II and by promotion from the category of Work Inspectors respectively in the ratio of 5:3:2. Admittedly, the process of filling up the posts of Assistant Engineers from the category of Draughtsman, Work Inspectors was undertaken during the period of 1992-1993 and by the said period instructions of the Government issued vide G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14.02.1992 were in existence and the respondent authorities, duly adhering to the said instructions, filled up 29 posts of Assistant Engineers by Work Inspectors out of 74 posts earmarked for promotees and rest by Draughtsman. 21. A perusal of the orders in G.O.Ms.No.30, T, R & B Department dated 14.02.1992, in clear and unequivocal terms, shows that the Government issued the same on the proposal of the Engineer-in-Chief in contemplation of issuance of amendment to special Rules. In the said orders, the Government also indicated that the same would come into effect immediately. It is equally important to note that though indication was given in G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14.02.1992 about amendment to special Rules, no such amendment to the Rules was notified to Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.904 dated 01.08.1973, till the year 2002. It is required to be noted that eventually, the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, framed the Rules called “Andhra Pradesh Roads and Buildings Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 2002” and notified the same vide G.O.Ms.No.58 T, R & B dated 01.05.2002. It is required to be noted that eventually, the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, framed the Rules called “Andhra Pradesh Roads and Buildings Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 2002” and notified the same vide G.O.Ms.No.58 T, R & B dated 01.05.2002. Vide Note 1 of Rule 3 of the said Rules, the State stipulated the ratio of 5:3:2, amongst direct recruitees, promotion from Draughtsman and promotion from Work Inspectors categories. Therefore, till the said Rules were made, there were no Statuary Rules, enabling to earmark the posts for promotion from the category of Work Inspectors and the entire case of the applicants centres around the same. In the direction of sustaining his stance on the justification on the part of the official respondents in implementing the instructions of the State Government issued vide G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14.02.1992, learned counsel places reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Admn. Vs. Usha Kheterpalwaie and Vimal Kumari Vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in (2011) 9 SCC 645 and (1998) 4 SCC 114 . 22. Another significant aspect is that as per the Rules notified vide G.O.Ms.No.904 dated 01.08.1973, 25% of the posts were earmarked for Draughtsman but new Rules of 2002 earmarked 30%, so also the instructions issued vide G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 14.02.1992. If old Rules, as notified vide G.O.Ms.No.904 dated 01.08.1973, were to be followed as per the applicants, the Draughtsman would get only 25% where as the direct recruitees would take 75% and interest of direct recruitees on the aspect of seniority also would get affected, but admittedly, no persons, who were likely to be affected were impleaded in the Original Applications. The same is fatal to the case of the applicants, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors reported in (2006) 10 SCC 346 at Para No.38. 23. It is not the case of the applicants that they noticed the alleged irregularities for the first time when provisional seniority list of Assistant Engineers was issued in the year 2009. Having slept over the matter and having maintained absolute hibernation for approximately 17 years, it is not open for the applicants to maintain the Original Applications. 23. It is not the case of the applicants that they noticed the alleged irregularities for the first time when provisional seniority list of Assistant Engineers was issued in the year 2009. Having slept over the matter and having maintained absolute hibernation for approximately 17 years, it is not open for the applicants to maintain the Original Applications. Admittedly, by the time of filing the Original Applications a provisional seniority list of Assistant Engineers was already issued by the respondent No.2, calling for objections. 24. It is a ground reality that even prior to the disposal of the present Original Applications, the Engineer-in-Chief rejected the claim of the applicants vide Memo dated 19.07.2011. It is also equally important to note that as on the date of disposal of the present Original Applications, O.A.No.2598 of 2011, filed by the petitioners, was also pending and the present Original Applications were directed to be taken up along with O.A.No.2598 of 2011 vide orders dated 29.04.2011, but neither the factum of rejection nor the pendency of O.A.No.2598 of 2011 filed by the petitioners herein was brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the applicants herein though they were shown as Respondent Nos.3 & 4 in O.A.No.2598 of 2011. These aspects, which are suppression of material realities, are also fatal to the case of the applicants herein. 25. This Court is also of the considered view that the Tribunal exceeded and travelled beyond its jurisdiction and dealt with the procedure adopted by the official respondents more than one and half decades back in the year 1992-1993 and the same is impermissible in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which prescribes period of limitation for entertaining Original Applications under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 26. In view of the reasons set out supra, this Court has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation to arrive at the conclusion that the orders of the Tribunal, which are impugned in these Writ Petitions, suffer from jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 27. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petitions are allowed, setting aside the orders dated 24.11.2011, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.12272 of 2009, 12273 of 2009, 12273 of 2009 and 12273 of 2009. There shall no order as to costs. 27. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petitions are allowed, setting aside the orders dated 24.11.2011, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.12272 of 2009, 12273 of 2009, 12273 of 2009 and 12273 of 2009. There shall no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.