IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO :165 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20/01/2009 in WP NO : 529 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Indla Ananda Rao S/o.Veeraswamy Ulavapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The General Manager, The Prakasam District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 The Commissioner & Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P., Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI.S.SIVA PRASAD Counsel for the RespondentS.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO :165 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal is preferred by the appellant-Writ petitioner aggrieved by the order, dated 20.1.2009 in WPMP No.640 of 2009 in W.P.No.528 of 2009. The appellant filed the above writ petition seeking to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not issuing call letter to him for subjecting him to the selection process, as illegal and arbitrary and to declare that he is entitled to be considered for appointment in the category V post in Prakasam District Co-operative Central Bank, Ongole reserved for scheduled tribe. Along with the writ petition, the appellant-petitioner filed the above WPMP seeking an interim direction to the 1st respondent to permit him to participate in the selection process that would took place from 23.1.2009 for recruitment of category V postsin Prakasham District Co-operative Central Bank, Ongole, pending disposal of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge passed the following order in the above WPMP: “Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have not communicated the reasons for not calling him for the interview for the Category V post. In that view of the matter, there shall be interim direction to the General Manager, Prakasam District Co- Operative Central Bank Limited, Ongole-1st respondent to communicate the reasons for not permitting the petitioner to appear for the interview for the category V post. Any promotions to the Category V post shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. Notice.” The direction given by the learned Single Judge is justifiable one. The learned Judge while giving a direction to furnish reasons for not calling the petitioner for interview, also made it clear that any promotions to the Category V post shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. If the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, he will be put on better footing. Without ascertaining the reasons, if any permission is accorded, that would affect the rights of the candidates who appear for interview. Apart from that, after furnishing the reasons as directed, the petitioner may avail remedies that are available to him. In this view of the matter and in view of the fact that the present appeal is preferred against the interlocutory orders, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we feel that the approach of the appellant is a premature one and the writ appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ____________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date: 23rd January, 2009 gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 165 of 2009 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 23rd January, 2009