THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.4185 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in OA No.920 of 2010, whereby the Tribunal while ordering notice before admission, declined to pass an interim order as prayed for by the petitioner/applicant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while working as Assistant Professor of Pediatric Surgery in OMC/Niloufer Hospital, Hyderabad, was promoted to the post of Associate Professor in Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam vide proceedings, dated 08.02.2010, of the second respondent. His wife is working as Assistant Professor in Government Maternity Hospital, Nayapool, Hyderabad. The 4th respondent, who was not covered under spouse category, was posted to Hyderabad. It is stated that as per the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.273 dated 21.05.1999, the spouse category personnel shall be given priority and shall be called for counselling first in order of seniority. It is stated that though there is a clear vacancy available under spouse category at Hyderabad, the second respondent without considering the case of the petitioner, issued proceedings dated 08.02.2010 posting him at Visakhapatnam. Challenging the same, he filed O.A.No.920 of 2010 before the Tribunal. Since the Tribunal ordered notice before admission refusing to grant interim order, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner is covered under spouse category and there is a clear vacancy available at Hyderabad, the action of the second respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner for posting him at Hyderabad, is illegal, arbitrary and contravention of G.O.Ms.No.273 dated 21.05.1999. He further contended that as per the proceedings dated 08.02.2010 of the second respondent, the petitioner has to join duty on or before 02.03.2010. 4. This writ petition is misconceived. The Tribunal thought it proper to order notice before admission while refusing to grant interim order after considering the case record. Denial of an interim order, at the threshold will not entitle the petitioner, as a matter of right, to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate that notice be given to the opposite side so as to invite a counter for adjudication of the matter on merits. 5. The Supreme Court in L. CHANDRA KUMAR vs. UNION OF INDIA1, inter alia, held that in the first instance, the Tribunal shall adjudicate the matter and decide the rights of the parties on merits. Mere ordering of notice in an interlocutory petition does not amount to rendering of a decision on merits. In the present case, the Tribunal has neither committed a jurisdictional error nor exceeded its limits. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, merely declined to exercise its jurisdiction in granting an interim order while ordering notice to the opposite party. The Tribunal, in our opinion, did rightly so and there is no jurisdictional error much less any illegality or irregularity in the order. 6. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to exercise our certiorari jurisdiction in the instant case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioner joins duty within the stipulated time, the Tribunal is directed to give appropriate interim direction to protect the interest of the petitioner. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:24.02.2010 Note: Issue CC within two days. (Bo) sj 1 AIR 1997 SC 1125