IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE 19th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 W.P. No.22250 of 2009 Between: D.S.Hari Babu ….PETITIONER(S) and The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Chittoor, Chittoor District and others …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.22250 of 2009 COMMON ORDER:( Per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH) This petition is filed seeking to quash the interim order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 12.10.2009 in O.A.No.11035 of 2009. It is the contention of the petitioner that while he was working as a Senior Assistant in Panchayat Raj Division, Zilla Parishad, Chittoor, by the orders of the 1st respondent, dated 07.10.2009, he was posted to work at Mandal Praja Parishad, Varadaiahpalem of Chittoor District, on deputation. The petitioner questioned the said order of deputation before the Tribunal in O.A.No.11035 of 2009. The contention of the petitioner is that there is a ban imposed by the Government on transfer of the employees by then and that the order of posting him on deputation is made without assigning any reasons and that his wife is working as a Superintendent in the Office of the District B.C. Welfare Officer, Chittoor, and, therefore, he cannot be transferred to work at a place far away from the place where he is working under the guise of deputation and that he is still continuing at the same place and not relieved. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal, on 12.10.2009, while issuing notice before admission to the respondents returnable within two weeks, posted the O.A.No.11035 of 2009 to 26.10.2009 directing the respondents to maintain status-quo of the applicant (petitioner herein) obtaining as on that day. It is stated that the petitioner was relieved from duties on the next day of the order of deputation i.e. four days prior to the order of status quo granted by the Tribunal. The petitioner questions the said interim order on the ground that he cannot be sent on deputation, within the same department, and if it is a transfer order, there is a ban imposed by the Government for transferring the employees. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. R.Manjula and Another vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Services.I) Department, Secretariat, Government of A.P., Hyderabad and Another[1] held that this court would not normally interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the Tribunal and that the grant of an interlocutory order or refusal thereof is within the discretion of the Tribunal and that this court would not interfere with such discretion exercised by the Tribunal with regard to the interlocutory orders unless it is established that passing of such interlocutory order or refusal thereof had resulted in an irreversible situation resulting in manifest injustice and that it would not be appropriate for this court to entertain any writ petition only for the purpose of granting an interim order during the pendency of the main proceedings before the Tribunal. It was further held that, however, it would be entirely a different matter if the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in the matter of granting interim relief results in incalculable repercussions and public mischief. In the instant case, since the petitioner is not remediless and he can as well pursue his remedies before the Tribunal by bringing to the notice of the Tribunal about the ban imposed by the Government for transferring the employees and since the petitioner questioned the interim order passed by the Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the contentions of the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the interim order passed by the Tribunal by exercising the discretion under the Certiorari jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ____________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J 19th October 2009 CVRK [1] 2002 (3) ALD 648