THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.28486 OF 2009 31-12-2009 BETWEEN; J.Murali son of J.Radhakrishnamurty ...Petitioner vs. The Government of India represented by its Secretary, New Delhi and three otherws ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.28486 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) Heard Sri E.Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel representing S M.Ravinder Nath Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and th learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent No.1 and 2 and th learned Government Pleader for Services-II for respondent No.3. The writ petition is directed against the interim order dated 15-12 2009 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench i O.A.No.1033 of 2009 declining to grant stay of selections to the India Administrative Service (IAS) from amongst the officers of the relevan feeder category in the State services, under the All India Service (Appointment by promotion) Regulations, 1955. The petitioner ha assailed in the O.A the validity of the Regulation 5(4) and 5(5) of th Regulations and the guidelines framed for internal guidance by the 2n respondent, in the context of certain observations recorded by th Supreme Court on these Regulations and guidelines in UPSC Vs K.Rajaiah and Others ([1]). The Central Administrative Tribunal in declining to interdict th process of selections observed that any selections made pursuant to th selection committee meeting held on 09-11-2009 would be subject to th result of the O.A and has also recorded that as the applicant is junior to a those who have been selected even according to the applicant, no case i made out for passing an interdictory order. While the petitioner claims preferential right vis-à-vis the others who appeared at the selections whether that expectation would eventually result in a Judgment his favou in the O.A will have to be await adjudication of the validity of th Regulations and the guidelines impugned in the O.A. Concerns of publi interest warrant that the process of selection should not be interdicted, as public office particularly in an All India Service ought not to be left unfilled to subserve the interest of an individual litigator. On the aforesaid analysis, we discern no infirmity in the interim order of the CAT impugned in this writ petition. There are no merits.Th writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 31st DECEMBER 2009. TSNR [1] (2005) 10 SCC 15