HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.19671 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled against the non-passing of interim order in O.A.No.6160 of 2008 on the ﬁle of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The details relevant for disposal of this writ petition may be stated thus: The third respondent herein – K.Harshavardhan was appointed in the non-joining vacancy of Deputy Collector in April 1996 and his claim for seniority on par with direct recruits of 1993 was rejected by the Government in its order dated 24-5-2003, which was challenged in O.A.No.4240 of 2003. The Tribunal is stated to have upheld the said order and it was conﬁrmed by this Court in W.P.No.25533 of 2003. The main grievance of the petitioner is that in the light of certain observations in the writ petition, the Government granted seniority to the third respondent over direct recruits of 1994. When the petitioner questioned the same in the present O.A., the Tribunal ordered notice, but did not pass interim orders, pending disposal of O.A. Hence, this writ petition. 3. We have heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 4. Admittedly, the writ petition is mainly ﬁled aggrieved by non-passing of the interim orders, pending disposal of O.A. The Tribunal had rightly ordered notice so as to give opportunity to the other side to ﬁle counter and put forth the case. The Tribunal in its discretion thought it ﬁt to give opportunity to all the parties before passing the interim order, which cannot be interfered at this stage. Further, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition inasmuch as the Tribunal is seized of the matter and there is no ﬁnal adjudication by the Tribunal. It is for the Tribunal to decide whether to pass interim order or not. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to consider the prayer for interim relief and pass appropriate interim orders, within a period of two weeks from today. 5. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. It is needless to state that the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court by ﬁling fresh writ petition in case any adverse order is passed or the situation so warrants. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 10-09-2008 Note: Furnish copy by tomorrow. (b/o) bsc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 19671 of 2008 Between: M.Hari Jawaharlal, S/o. Rama Naik, United Nations International Children Emergency Fund, (UNICEF) Sangareddy, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andrha Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, hyderabad. 2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 K.Harsha Vardhan, S/o. Late K.Ganga Raju, on Special Duty to Minister of Backward Classes Welfare, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....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 will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and declare and hold that the decision oﬂ the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in not granting interim orders in O.A.No.6160 of 2008 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and to consequently declare the orders in G.O.Rt.No.992 Revenue (Services.I/1) Department, dated 01.05.2008 and the consequential Notice by the 2nd respondent vide Reference No.D1/683/2008, dated 04.06.2008 as illegal, discriminatory and amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NAVEEN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following :