IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1318 OF 2009 Dt.16.11.2009 Between: I. Venugopal … Appellant And The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Tirupathi, Chittoor District … Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri J. Sudheer Counsel for the Respondent: Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1318 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This writ appeal has been filed against order dt.19.6.2009 in W.V.M.P. No.92 of 2009 in W.P.M.P. No.30336 of 2008 in W.P. No.23281 of 2008, whereby the learned Single Judge vacated the order dt.15.11.2008 passed in favour of the appellant. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned Counsel for the appellant, and perused the record. The appellant is working as Associate Lecturer in S.P.W. Polytechnic College, Tirupathi. By G.O. Ms. No.1470 dt.24.11.2007, the Government of Andhra Pradesh directed the respondent Devasthanam to appoint the appellant as Deputy Executive Engineer (Radio and Broadcasting) relaxing existing method of appointment and the qualifications. As the said order was not being implemented by the respondent, the appellant filed W.P. No.23281 of 2008. By order dt.15.11.2008, this Court directed the respondent to consider giving effect to the above mentioned G.O. issued by the Government. In the vacate stay application filed by the respondent, the said order has been vacated by the learned Single Judge by following the ratio laid down by a Full Bench of this Court, vide its judgment dt.12.10.2007 in W.P. No.19745 of 1994. Since the Writ Petition is pending, we refrain from giving findings on the merits of the case. It will suffice to note that while Rule 9(viii) of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, 1989 (for short, “the Rules”) by which the appointment by transfer from one Department to the other, was deleted as far back as 7.8.1997, the Government issued the above mentioned G.O. in favour of the appellant in the year 2007. Whether such an action is in consonance with the Rules or not is the question, which requires to be examined in the Writ Petition. In our view, an interim direction of the nature granted in favour of the appellant will have the effect of giving a part relief claimed in the Writ Petition itself. Unless the petitioner succeeds in the Writ Petition, he is not entitled to grant of such a relief, as was ordered by this Court by order dt.15.11.2008. The learned Single Judge therefore rightly vacated the said order. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P. No.2773 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is dismissed as infructuous. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16.11.2009 bnr