IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 9th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 W.P.No.24778 of 2009 BETWEEN: M.Reddi Khader and others ….PETITIONER(S) and The Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and others …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.24778 of 2009 ORDER:( Per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH) This writ petition is filed by the applicants before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, seeking to set aside the order dated 03.11.2009 passed in V.M.A.No.2084 of 2009 in O.A.No.1230 of 2009 and declare that they are entitled to be appointed in the post of Physical Education Teacher (Urdu) as per their district ranks 1, 2 and 3 respectively in DSC-2008 of Kadapa district with all consequential benefits. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for ZPP for Rayalaseema Region, and the learned Government Pleader for School Education. Petitioners herein and another have filed the aforesaid O.A. claiming that they are eligible to be considered for the post of Physical Education Teacher (Urdu), but their claim is not being considered. By order dated 30.01.2009, while issuing notices to the respondents, the Tribunal directed the official respondents to receive the applications of the applicants and allow them to participate in the selection process pursuant to DSC-2008, but stayed the proclamation of results. Subsequent to the said order, the Tribunal by order dated 23.07.2009 in M.A.No.2214 of 2009 in O.A.No.1230 of 2009 directed the official respondents to declare the results of the applicants forthwith. By a further order dated 13.10.2009 in M.A.No.3818 of 2009 in O.A.No.1230 of 2009 with MA No.210 of 2009 the Tribunal directed the official respondents to keep three posts of Physical Education Teacher (Urdu) vacant, pending disposal of the O.A. Thereafter, the contesting respondents 6 to 8 herein have sought vacation of the order passed by the Tribunal on 13.10.2009 whereby three posts of Physical Education Teacher (Urdu) were directed to be kept vacant. However, the order impugned herein dated 03.11.2009 passed in V.M.A.No.2084 of 2009 in O.A.No.1230 of 2009 shows that the Tribunal has vacated the order dated 30.01.2009 which was the initial order passed by the Tribunal at the time of admission of the O.A. In fact, it is the last of the order i.e. dated 13.10.2009 which was sought to be vacated and by the impugned order the Tribunal has vacated the last of the order i.e. the order dated 13.10.2009, though there is a mistake in para-9 thereof with regard to the date of the order which was directed to be vacated as 30.01.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contends that, since the order of the Tribunal vacating the interim order is unsupported by any reasons, inasmuch as there is no prima facie case or the balance of convenience to vacate the interim order, all the contentions be heard by this Court in this writ petition. Since several contentions on either side need to be considered in the said V.M.A., and as the impugned order does not contain any reasons as to why the interim order dated 13.10.2009 is vacated, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order dated 03.11.2009 passed in V.M.A.No.2084 of 2009 in O.A.No.1230 of 2009 and remit the V.M.A.No.2084 of 2009 in O.A.No.1230 of 2009 and/or the O.A.No.1230 of 2009 to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal according to law. If the Tribunal so desires, it may consider either the VMA or the O.A. and finally dispose of the same at the earliest. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed setting aside the order dated 03.11.2009 passed in V.M.A.No.2084 of 2009 in O.A.No.1230 of 2009. There shall be no order as to costs. Both the learned counsel submitted that there is an urgency inasmuch as all the other posts are already filled up, leaving the three posts vacant in which either the petitioners herein or the contesting respondents have to be selected and appointed. The Tribunal is, therefore, requested to hear and dispose of the matter at the earliest. Both the counsel are at liberty to mention the urgency and make a request before the Tribunal and we are sure that the Tribunal would consider the same. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ____________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J 9th December 2009 CVRK