THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.23125 OF 2009 Dt.28.10.2009 Between: M.Hanumantha Rao .. Petitioner And The Government of A.P. rep. By its Principal Secretary, Home (Services II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.23125 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.11345 of 2009, dated 22.10.2009 wherein the interim relief was refused on the ground that it is not a fit case for granting interim orders. Notice was issued to the respondents returnable in four weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been promoted already and working in the promotional post on the basis of the position assigned to him in the original seniority list. Learned counsel therefore states that the denial of the interim relief may result in his reversion and therefore seeks intervention of this Court. Normally, we would not entertain the writ petition arises out of the grant or refusal of interim relief by the Tribunal unless the petitioner makes out a case satisfying any of the ingredients as enumerated in R.Manjula and another v. Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Services.I) Department, Hyderabad and another[1]. In the present case, we find that the counting of seniority of the petitioner was originally with effect from 16.3.1991 based on the directions of the Chief Officer by virtue of the subsequent memo of the C.O. dated 11.7.2005 informing that the petitioner is entitled for counting seniority from the initial date of appointment as RSI (AR) i.e., from 22.7.1991 only. Based thereon the Inspector General of Police, Guntur Range, Guntur, under his proceedings in C.No.107/A1/2005 and R.O.O.No.223/2005, dated 8.12.2005 modified the placement of the petitioner among Sub Inspectors in the seniority list by taking aforesaid date 22.7.1991 as effective date for the post of RSI (AR). Later the petitioner has preferred O.A.No.3754 of 2006 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated 29.9.2006 suspended the said order of the Inspector General of Police, Guntur Range, Guntur, pending the O.A. The said O.A. is still pending. Meanwhile, four other officers, K.V.Narayana and others, Sub Inspectors (Civil) of 1991 batch of Guntur Range objected to the fixation of the seniority of the petitioner. While considering the said objections, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1792, Home (Services-II) Department, dated 19.10.2009, modifying the petitioner’s seniority from the date of his appointment in the Armed Reserve as Reserve Sub Inspector subject to the outcome of the S.L.P pending before the Apex Court. The said order is questioned in the present O.A. by the petitioner and pending O.A. he had sought interim relief. We, however, find that the said G.O.Rt.No.1792, dated 19.10.2009, was issued on account of the objections raised by K.V.Narayana and other Sub Inspectors objecting to the fixation of the seniority of the petitioner from 16.3.1991. Since the petitioner is seeking the relief against the said G.O., he, however, has not made the said objectors as a party to the O.A since the very G.O. was issued at the instance of the four officers. Without impleading them in the O.A., challenging the said G.O., the petitioner prima facie was not entitled to any relief though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no reasons are assigned by the Tribunal while rejecting the interim relief except stating that it is not a fit case. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the same in view of the additional reason that necessary parties are not impleaded in the O.A. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, seeks liberty to implead them in the O.A. He also submits that those objectors have separately filed application for impleading. However, no orders are passed thereon. Be that as it may, in view of the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he may be permitted to implead the said four objectors in the O.A., we grant aforesaid liberty to the petitioner and we also permit the petitioner to move separate application for interim relief after impleading the said objectors. When the petitioner takes the aforesaid steps, the Tribunal is requested to consider the application for interim relief expeditiously. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 28.10.2009 Note: Issue copy by tomorrow B.O. kpr [1] 2002 (3) ALD 648 (DB)