IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26897 of 2008 Between: R. Rameshwari W/o. Sri Krishna O/o. The Engineer in Chief, Irrigation & C.A.D. Department, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary Irrigation & C.A.D. Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad Dist. 2 The Engineer in Chief Irrigation & C.A.D. Department Jalasoudha Buildings, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent of Engineer (AW) Irrigation Wing Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 4 R. Somanath (Major) S/o. not known O/o. Engineer in Chief (Admn. Wing) Irrigation Department, Jalasoudha Buildings, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. .....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 will be pleased to to issue any order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS that the respondents are not giving promotion to the petitioner herein from 12-04-1976 to 2008 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and direct the respondents to give necessary promotion and other increments, subsequently direct the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal to clear the case O.A.No. 8368 of 2008 at its earliest possible time due to the petitioner herein is going to retire from her service on June, 2009. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VEERAMREDDIGARI PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 26897 OF 2008 ORDER: ( Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 1. This writ petition is filed against the order dated 16th October, 2008 where the Tribunal admitted the O.A.No. 8368 OF 2008 and ordered notice on interim relief. 2. The petitioner filed O.A. inter alia contending that she joined in Irrigation Department on 12-4-1976 as Junior Assistant as per G.O.Ms.NO. 647, and her services were regularized in the cadre of Junior Assistant. The petitioner has passed B.A. Degree from Osmania University and she qualified in Department tests in the year 1983. She hails from the Scheduled Caste Community. She got selected through Employment Exchange in Heads of Department in Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Wing, Erramanzil, Hyderabad as Junior Assistant. As per proceedings in Rc.NO. A2/58810/77, dated 7-1-1980 her name was at serial No.5. But, in the subsequent seniority list her name found place at serial No.77 due to joining of others from other districts, which is discriminatory, illegal and arbitrary. It is further averred that the Mulki Rules clearly states that Respondents have to protect the local candidates in VI Zone of the Heads of Department in Hyderabad. On 15- 7-2008 the Respondent No.2 issued seniority list of Superintendents, in which her name did not find place. Challenging the action of the respondents in not promoting her to the promotion post and promoting the Respondent No.4 O.A.has been filed. 3. The Tribunal after considering the submissions made by the parties thought it fit to issue Rule nisi. The Tribunal has not passed an order on merits inasmuch as there is no determination or conclusion of the matter on contest and the matter is pending before the Tribunal. 4. Without going into the merits of the case, we are of the considered opinion that let the Tribunal pass a reasoned order after giving opportunity to both sides. We do not find any flaw in Tribunal issuing the rule nisi. 5. In R. Manjula Vs. Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue ( Service), Hyderabad[1] while dealing with a similar situation, this Court held as follows: “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 there of 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 such interlocutory order or refusal there of 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 the main proceedings before the Tribunal. Suffice it to observe, interference of this Court on the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal at an interlocutory stage is not a matter of course”. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is premature and we do not find any flaw in the order of the Tribunal in issuing Rule nisi. However, we direct the Tribunal to dispose of the O.A.No.8368 of 2008 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ____________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 11th December, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 26897 OF 2008 11th December, 2008. [1] 2002(3) ALD 648,