IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) 15/03/2010 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5865 of 2010 Between: Dr. Gourhari Kamila S/o Maheshwr Kamila ..... PETITIONER AND The Secretary, The Union Public Service Commission and three others .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the order dated 11.3.2010 in O.A.No. 210 of 2010 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and declare the same as illegal and unjust and consequently set aside the same with a direction to the 1st respondent to accept the candidature of the petitioner for the post Deputy Director (Ballistics) advertised vide Advertisement No. 13 published in Employment News dated 12-18 July, 2008 with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” This writ petition is misconceived. The Tribunal thought it proper to order notice before admission while refusing to grant interim order after considering the case record. Denial of an interim order, at the threshold will not entitle the petitioner, as a matter of right, to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate that notice be given to the opposite side so as to invite a counter for adjudication of the matter on merits. The Supreme Court in L. CHANDRA KUMAR vs. UNION OF INDIA1, inter alia, held that in the first instance, the Tribunal shall adjudicate the matter and decide the rights of the parties on merits. Mere ordering of notice in an interlocutory petition does not amount to rendering of a decision on merits. In the present case, the Tribunal has neither committed a jurisdictional error nor exceeded its limits. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, merely declined to exercise its jurisdiction in granting an interim order while ordering notice to the opposite party. The Tribunal, in our opinion, did rightly so and there is no jurisdictional error much less any illegality or irregularity in the order. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to exercise our certiorari jurisdiction in the instant case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is needless to mention that any selection should be subject to the result of the O.A. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ___________________________ NOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date:15.03.2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies 1 AIR 1997 SC 1125