IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH 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 : 19953 of 2008 Between: A.Ganga Reddy S/o. Raja Reddy Goshamahal, hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dy Inspector General of Police Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Police, hyderabad City Police, hyderabad. 3 State of A.P rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, 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 a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other wise declaring the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal Dt 10-9-2008 in O.A No.7444/2008 in not granting interim relief while issuing notice before admission as arbitrary illegal and erroneous for not exercising the discretionary power in granting the interim relief and issue consequential directions restraining the respondents implemending the proceedings Rc No 516/E1- 148/HR/2008/RO No.845/2008 dt 6-9-2008 issued by the 1st respondent with a direction to continue the petitioner as Inspector of Police till disposal of the O.A No.7444/2008 by the Hon'ble Tribunal and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.19953 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled against the non-grant of interim order in O.A.No.7444 of 2008 on the ﬁle of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner ﬁled the above O.A. challenging the proceedings dated 06-09-2008 issued by ﬁrst respondent reverting him from the post of Inspector of Police to that of Sub-Inspector of Police on the premise that he did not complete six years of service as Sub-Inspector (Civil) and the promotion was made by inadvertence. The case of the petitioner is that Rule 6(b) of Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Service Rules contemplates six years of service in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police. The petitioner further contends that he has been working for the past nine months as Inspector of Police and he ought not to have been reverted. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged several grounds in the writ petition and the principal contention is that as per Rule 23 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, the competent authority is not empowered to review an order of transfer or promotion beyond the period of six months from the date thereof and since the petitioner has been continued in the promotion post beyond nine months, the Government is competent to pass orders in that regard, by recording the reasons. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader contended that Rule 10(e) of A.P. State Subordinate Service Rules stipulates that the appointing authority has the power to revert an employee to the substantive post and when the matter is pending before the Tribunal, it is desirable to give an opportunity to the oﬃcial respondents to file counter. 5. In the instant case, though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to raise various contentions and legal ﬂaws in passing the proceedings impugned in O.A., we are not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case and entertain the writ petition as the Tribunal is seized of the matter and it has not adjudicated the issues involved in O.A. on merits. However, having regard to the submission that the petitioner is working as Inspector of Police and the fact that notice was ordered in O.A. to enable the oﬃcial respondents to ﬁle counter and put forth their case, we deem it just and proper to direct the Tribunal to consider the prayer for interim relief and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from today. Till such time, status quo as on today shall be maintained. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 15-09-2008 bsc