IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 157 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 07/11/2008 in WP NO : 25037 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: G.Abrahman S/o.G.Sunder Rao AP Transco, Room No.418, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Transmission Corporation Pvt. Limited, represented by its Chief General Manager (HRD & Training), Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Chairman & Managing Director, AP TRANSCO, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3 J.Raghupathi S/o.J.Khandu SCADA Project, Erragadda, Hyderabad. 4 K.Bhaskar Rao S/o.Janaradhana Rao The Chief Engineer (Telecom), AP TRANSCO, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.SATISH DESHPANDEY Counsel for the Respondents.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP.TRANSCO) The Division Bench of This Court made the following : (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI A N D THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 157 of 2009 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Mrs. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The writ appeal is filed against the orders dated 07- 11-2008 passed by the learned single Judge in WVMP.No.2131 of 2008 in WPMP.No. 32059 of 2006 whereby he made the interim order passed on 12-02-2007 as absolute and dismissed the vacate stay application and directed to post the main writ petition for final hearing immediately after Sankranti vacation 2009, high up in the list. 2. The main contention of Sri Satish Deshpande, the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned single Judge ought not to have made the interim direction as absolute on the ground that the appellant had been promoted through proceedings dated 17-7-2003 and has been functioning as such since 24-7-2003 and that his services have been regularized in the said cadre through proceedings dated 16-10-2006 subject to the result of WP.No.2536 of 2004. He further contended that the anticipating reversion, the appellant filed WP.No.2536 of 2004 and this court by order dated 12-2-2004 granted statusquo and the same is existing as on today. Moreover since 2003 the respondents have not challenged the promotion of the appellant as Divisional Engineer and that no steps have been taken to get the interim order vacated. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri P.R.BALARAMI REDDY the learned standing counsel for A.P. Transco. Perused the impugned order. 4. In the WP.No.2536 of 2004 filed by the appellant already statusquo is existing as on today and that his services were also regularised and even if the learned single Judge made the interim order absolute no prejudice will be caused to him. The appellant can raise all the disputed questions of fact before the learned single Judge. Under the above circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single judge except directing the registry to post WP.No.25037 of 2006 and WP.No.2536 of 2004 on 03-3-2009 on the top of the list under the caption for “final hearing”. 5. With the above observation, the writ appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. ___________________________ JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY 18-2-2009. I s L – S U R ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {KURR}