ORDER
Satya Brata Sinha, CJ.
1. This application is directed against an order dated 5-5-2000 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No.4174 of 1994 which had been dismissed stating as follows:-
“The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the respondents did not earmark total vacancies in the ratio of 60 and 40 between local candidates and non-local candidates and also did not observe rule of reservation among the local and non-local candidates. This contention is not supported by the instructions issued in Annexure-III of the Presidential Order. White dealing with CA No.220 of 1994 in OA No.970 of 1993 we have held that the respondents have followed the procedure as prescribed in the Presidential Order and there is no illegality in the selections made. Therefore, no relief can be granted in these two O.As and both the O.As are liable to be dismissed.
In the result, CA No.220 of 1994 in OA No.970 of 1993 is closed and OA Nos.4174 of 1994 and 4555 of 1994 are dismissed.”
2. It appears that the said applications were clubbed with contempt matters for implementation of the orders passed in OA No.4555 of 1994 and OA No.4174 of 1994. The contempt proceedings were closed, inter alia, on the ground that the A.P.
Public Service Commission reviewed the position in pursuance of the judgment of the Tribunal and also filed a petition for review and the procedure as prescribed in the Presidential Order has been followed by it.
3. The question which was raised by the petitioner herein before the learned Tribunal was as to whether the selection made by the Service Commission should be set aside or not having regard to the earlier decision of the Tribunal in OA No.4174 of 1994. It may be that the prayer made by the petitioner was not dexterously drafted but there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the petitioner being not a party to the contempt proceedings, was entitled to make his submission independently.
4. Having regard to the fact that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is of wider amplitude, the Tribunal can mould the reliefs, if necessary, so as to do complete justice between the parties. In the aforementioned situation, we are of the opinion that the consideration of the matter for the purpose of disposal of the contempt proceedings must be held to be different than consideration of the merit ofthe matter in the proceedings under Section 19 of the said Act. The contempt jurisdiction may be exercised or may not be exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case; but only because the Tribunal refused to exercise its contempt jurisdiction, the same by itself would not mean that it would not go into the merit of the matter which arose out of an application filed by the petitioner herein in an independent proceedings. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained which is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Tribunal for consideration afresh. We place it on record that we have not entered into the merit of
die matter and all contentions of the parties are left open.
5. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to
costs.