IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10151 of 2009 Between: DR. Ajella Nageswara Rao, S/o. Ajella Venkateswara Rao, R/o.Primary Health Centre, Pelamaluru, R/o. H.No. 26-A, Sethapuram Colony, Puranki, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Health Medical & Family Welfare Department, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Director of Health, Office of Director of Health, Sutan Bazar, Hyderabad. 3 The District Medical and Health Office, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus call for the records pertaining to impugned order in Memo No. 172-1-2-2004-2dated 09-11-2004 of the 1st respondent, challenged in pursuance of the O.A.No. 5863 of 2009 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad as ilegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and its amounts violation of 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to alter the date of birth of the applicant as per birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Births & Deaths, Machilipatnam Municipality, Krishna District i.e., 25-01-1953 with all consequential benefits such as seniority promotion etc., Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.LAKSHMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10151 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The petitioner filed O.A.No.5863 of 2009 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, questioning the order of the Government in Memo No.172-1-2-2004-2, dated 09-11-2004, rejecting the request of the petitioner for alteration of his date of birth as 25-01-1953 instead of 10-05-1951. The Tribunal while admitting the O.A., on 06-05- 2009 issued notice to the respondents. Aggrieved by the said action of the Tribunal in not granting interim suspension of the Government Memo, dated 09-11-2004, this writ petition is filed questioning the said Government Memo. The petitioner approached the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, after five years of rejection of his request that too at the fag end of his service. As the O.A. is pending before the Tribunal, we are not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case as it may adversely affect the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Division Bench of this court in R.MANJULA Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (SERVICES.I) DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD[1] considered the question as to whether the decision of the Tribunal in refusing to grant an ex-parte ad interim order is susceptible to be judicially reviewed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While answering the said question, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- “In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not normally interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the Tribunal. Grant of an interlocutory order or refusal thereof is within the discretion of the Tribunal. 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. 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. However, it would be entirely a different matter if the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in the matter of granting interim reliefs results in incalculable repercussions and public mischief. In such cases where denial of interim orders may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable injury or shake a citizens faith in the judicial process, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to interfere and grant appropriate relief accordingly. Suffice it to observe, interference of this Court with the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal at interlocutory stage is not a matter of course. The Tribunal in the instant cases having heard the matters at the admission stage in exercise of its discretion though it fit to admit the original applications filed by the petitioners and accordingly directed notices requiring the respondents to appear in the matter. The Tribunal in its discretion thought it fit not to stall and interdict further promotions of eligible persons to the posts of Deputy Collectors. The order, in our considered opinion, had not resulted in any irreversible situation. The Tribunal is entitled to pass appropriate orders after hearing all the parties to the proceedings. We are informed that even the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners are not disposed of by the Tribunal and are under its consideration. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief whatsoever from this Court at this stage.” In view of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this court, we dismiss the writ petition. However, it is needless to observe that the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations, if any made in this order, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 10-06-2009 Prv [1] 2002 (3) ALD 648 (DB)