THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.16770 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners are working as Superintendents in various offices of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, the 1st respondent herein. There is a longstanding dispute and litigation in relation to the fixation of seniority, in the category of Senior Assistants. There are two channels for that post: One is by way of promotion of Junior Assistants, and the other is re-designation of U.D. Stenos. The 1st respondent used to reckon the seniority for U.D. Stenos, who are promoted as Senior Assistants, from the date of their initial appointment as U.D. Stenos, whereas for Junior Assistants, who got promotion, the seniority used to be reckoned from the date of their promotion. In W.P.No.9908 of 2007, this Court through judgment dated 07-09-2007 took the view that, for both the categories, the seniority shall be reckoned from the date of appointment, whether by way of promotion, or re-designation. However, the benefit of that order was confined to the parities thereto. Several proceedings ensued thereafter. With a view to ensure uniformity, the 1st respondent proposed to apply the said principle to all, in the category of Senior Assistants. Since the Senior Assistants, who came from the category of U.D Stenos, and not parties to W.P.No.9908 of 2007, were to be adversely affected, show cause notices dated 10-07-2010 were issued, inviting objections. The petitioners challenge the show cause notices. The petitioners contend that, when this Court in clear terms observed that the consequences flowing from the judgment in W.P.No.9908 of 2007 shall be confined to the parties to the writ petition, there is absolutely no justification for the 1st respondent in proposing to apply it, to the entire cadre of Senior Assistants. Reference is made to the various proceedings, that are pending before this Court. The 2nd respondent, who got himself impleaded, filed a counter- affidavit. He contends that the writ petition is not maintainable against a show cause notice. It is also urged that, once this Court laid a principle, and the said judgment is not suspended in the writ appeal, the 1st respondent is under obligation to rectify the anomalies. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, and Sri K. Lakshmi Narsimha, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Extensive submissions are made, touching on the merits of the matter, by making reference to the judgment in W.P.No.9908 of 2007, and the interim orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in a writ appeal filed against it. Whatever be the merits of the matter, the fact remains that the writ petition is filed against a show cause notice. It is only when a show cause notice is issued by an authority, not vested with the jurisdiction, or when it is found to be opposed to any specific provision of law, that this Court would consider the feasibility of interfering with it. The petitioners do not contend that the show cause notice is issued by an authority, not vested with the power, nor is it their case that the notice is opposed to any specific provision of law. If the petitioners are of the view that the action proposed to be taken through the show cause notice is untenable in law, they can certainly point out the same, in their explanation. There is no reason to believe that the 1st respondent would not take the explanation into account. Assuming that any orders are going to be passed, contrary to the interests of the petitioners, they can avail the remedies, in accordance with law. The apprehension of the petitioners, that they would be reverted immediately after rejection of their contention, can be allayed by directing that the 1st respondent shall not take any consequential steps for a period of one week, in case any orders adverse to the interests of the petitioners are passed, in pursuance of the impugned show cause notice. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, however, by directing that, in the event of the 1st respondent passing any orders adverse to the interests of the petitioners, consequential steps shall not be taken for a period of one week, from the date of communication of such order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.20-10-2010. KO