THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.423 of 2010 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) This writ petition is directed against the order of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 28-03-2008, in O.A.No.2298 of 2008, which reads as follows:- “Admit. Issue notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks. Interim Relief:- Pending further orders, the 1st and 2nd respondents are directed to take consequential action in pursuance of the Memo.No.13565/1E.1.A1/2006-1, dated 24-10-2007 of the 3rd respondent and appoint the applicant to the post of Junior Lecturer (Civics) in 10% quota as provided in Rule 3, Sl.No.8(b) of A.P. Intermediate Education Service Rules.” The O.A., referred to above, was filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in O.A. i.e., petitioners 2 and 3 herein in not taking consequential action in pursuance of the Government Memo, dated 24-10-2007, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct all the respondents (all the petitioners herein) to consider his case for appointment to the post of Junior Lecturer (Civics) in 10% quota as provided under Rule 3, Sl.No.8(b) of the A.P.Intermediate Education Service Rules and appoint him as such . The averments, in support of the said O.A., show that the 1st respondent herein had earlier approached the Tribunal with similar relief and the same was disposed of by the Tribunal permitting the 1st respondent to make a detailed representation to the Government and the Government was directed to take a decision on the said representation. The primary grievance of the 1st respondent is that in spite of several directions and the Memos issued by the Government, his case has not been considered by the petitioners for the said promotion. He, therefore, approached the Tribunal by the aforesaid O.A. once again seeking the relief as mentioned above. By the interim order, dated 28-03-2008, which is extracted above, the Tribunal issued the interim relief as prayed for. The petitioners herein, who are respondents before the Tribunal, have filed an application in V.M.A.No.853 of 2008 on 17-10-2008 seeking vacation of stay. The said V.M.A. is said to be still pending. Pending final orders, on the said interim relief, the 1st respondent herein filed contempt application No.360 of 2008 before the Tribunal, and by order, dated 21-12-2009, the Tribunal considered the said contempt case along with the V.M.A., referred to above, and passed the following order:- “The applicant’s counsel repeatedly saying that the respondents are not complying with the orders of this Court. The learned Government Pleader represented that the matter is pending with the G.A.D. This representation is being made since several adjournments. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is directed to make his personal appearance to explain as to why the orders of this Tribunal has not been complied with on 29-12-2009. Post on 29-12-2009.” The appearance of the contemnor is said to be scheduled on 21-01-2010. The present writ petition is, therefore, filed against the said interim order primarily contending that the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the contempt case, while keeping the application for vacation of interim order pending. We have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and Sri V.Ranga Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. While both the learned counsel have taken us through several aspects of the controversy, but it would not be appropriate for us to make an observation on the merits of the respective cases on either side, particularly in view of the fact that the matter is pending before the Tribunal. We are also of the view that the ex-parte interim order of the Tribunal, dated 28-03-2008, is subject to further orders of the Tribunal in V.M.A.No.853 of 2008 and it is imperative that final orders are to be passed. So far as the interim relief is concerned, the fact that the petitioners have filed an application seeking vacation of the interim order as early as on 17-10-2008, would itself prima facie establish that it is not a matter where there is any wilful disobedience on the part of the petitioners, as such, entertainment of contempt application, keeping the said V.M.A. pending, was not justified. We are, therefore, of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the said V.M.A. and/or the main O.A is heard and disposed of finally by the Tribunal, after giving adequate opportunity to both the parties. In the meanwhile, the contempt case instituted by the 1st respondent shall be taken up for consideration only after the Tribunal hears and passes the orders either in V.M.A. and/or in the main O.A. as the Tribunal deems it appropriate. We, therefore, request the Tribunal to hear and dispose of the VMA and/or the O.A at the earliest. It is represented that another O.A.No.8471 of 2008 connected with the same controversy between the same parties is pending before the Tribunal and in that O.A. also, the petitioners herein have filed a counter affidavit along with an application to vacate the interim relief as prayed for. Therefore, it is desirable that all these matters are heard and disposed of together. As such, the contempt case filed by the 1st respondent herein, as above, shall await and abide the decision of the Tribunal to be passed in the V.M.As. and/or the O.As. as directed above. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 20-01-2010 Prv