IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14022 of 2009 Between: P.Vijaya Shankar S/o.Sri.P.L.N.Sastry Flat No.202, Sri Sai Apartments, Bloc-A, Street No.8 Habsiguda, Hyderabad-500007 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India., North Block New Delhi, rep.by its Under Secretary 2 The Directorate of Forensic Sciences, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India., Block No.9, 8th floor, C.G.O.Comple Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003, rep.by its Director 3 The Government Examiner of Questioned Docuements Govt of India, CIFs Complex, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad-500013 4 The Union Public Service Commissiner, Dholpur House Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069, rep.byi ts Chairman .....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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus such as : a. Setting aside the order dated 10.7.2009 passed by the Hon`ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in OA./No.571/2009 b.Declaring the Notification of the 4th respondent as caused by the 2nd respondent inviting applications under Direct Recruitment for the post of "Deputy Government Examiners of Questioned Documents (DGEQD)" while slating the interviews to be carried out by the 4th respondent at Delhi vide Recruitment Reference No.F.1/44/2008-R-II in Employment News dated 24-30 January 2009 as being illegal, arbitrary and in contravention of Articles, 14,16 and 21 of the Judicial Order dated 15.11.1999 passed by the Hon`ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Circuit Camp at Shimla in OA.No.325 HP of 1999; c.Directing the 2nd respondent to frame and adopt Recruitment Rules for the various supervisory posts for the offices of 3rd respondent within a definite time-frame; d. Directing the 2nd respondent to prepare and finalize the seniority list of the AGEQD. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14022 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order, dated 10- 07-2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.571 of 2009 and to declare the notification of the 4th respondent as caused by the 2nd respondent inviting applications under Direct Recruitment for the posts of “Deputy Government Examiners of Questioned Documents while slating the interviews to be carried out by the 4th respondent at Delhi, on 13-07-2009, vide Recruitment Reference No.F.I/44/2008-R-II in Employment News dated 24-30 January, 2009 as illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the posts of Deputy Government Examiners of Questioned Documents have to be recruited by way of promotion to the extent of 66-2/3 percent, failing which, by transfer on deputation including short term contract/transfer and 33–1/3 percent by transfer on deputation including short term contract/transfer, failing which, by direct recruitment. It is stated that the petitioner is working as Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents and he is entitled to be appointed to the post of Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents by way of transfer on deputation including short term contract under 33-1/3 percent. As the candidates are available, the respondents cannot resort for direct recruitment. It is stated that the 4th respondent issued notification calling for the applications for two posts i.e., one post for unreserved and one post for OBC. In fact, in service candidates are also entitled for direct recruitment and, therefore, the petitioner also applied for the said post in February 2009. It is stated that the interviews are scheduled from 13-07-2009 and just before commencement of interviews, the petitioner filed the O.A. on 09-07-2009. The Tribunal vide order, dated 10-07-2009, while issuing notice to the respondents, granted four weeks time for filing their reply. The Tribunal while observing that if any selections are made in pursuance of the impugned notification, those selections will be subject to the result of the O.A., posted the O.A. after four weeks. The said interim order has been questioned in this writ petition. As a matter of fact, the maintainability of the writ petition is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in R.MANJULA AND ANOTHER Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (SERVICES.I) DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER[1], wherein the Division Bench made the following order: “In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not normally interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the Tribunal. Grant of an interlocutory order or refusal thereof is within the discretion of the Tribunal. This court would not interfere with such discretion exercised by the Tribunal with regard to the interlocutory orders unless it is established that passing of such interlocutory order or refusal thereof had resulted in an irreversible situation resulting in manifest injustice. It would not be appropriate for this court to entertain any writ petition only for the purpose of granting an interim order during the pendency of themain proceedings before the Tribunal. However, it would be entirely a different matter if the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in the matter of granting interim reliefs results in incalculable repercussions and public mischief. In such cases where denial of interim orders may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable injury or shake a citizens faith in the judicial process, it is not only the power but the duty of the Court to interfere and grant appropriate relief accordingly. Suffice it to observe, interference of this Court with the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal at interlocutory stage is not a matter of course.” Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in fact the petitioner applied for the said post under direct recruitment quota and having applied, he never questioned the said action of the respondents. However, if the petitioner succeeds in the main O.A., he can as well get appropriate relief and, if interviews are completed, no prejudice will be caused to him. We are not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case, as the Tribunal observed that if any selections are made pursuant to the said notification, it will be subject to the result of the O.A. and, therefore, the interest of the petitioner is sufficiently safeguarded. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to admit the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 14-07-2009 Prv [1] 2002 (3) ALD 648 (DB)