THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION Nos.9012 and 10422 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (BPR,J) Since counsel on either side suggested that common question arises in these two writ petitions, they are taken up together for disposal. At the outset, it is to be noticed that both the writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, respectively, by the applicants before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. In their applications filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 a substantial relief was sought and the proceedings under challenge are only interlocutory in its nature. In view of the same, we do not wish to go into the merits of the claim of the petitioners respectively or to have any say on merits. We thus refrain from going into the merits. In W.P.No.10422 of 2011 the petitioners are the applicants before the Tribunal in O.A.No.4612 of 2010 wherein the impugned action, which is assailed, is in treating the post of Transport Constable as a zonal post contrary to the provisions of A.P. Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 and that too without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government. Shorn of all the details, initially, the Tribunal granted interim directions to maintain the status quo regarding promotion to the post of Transport Head Constable. On an application filed by the State for vacating, these orders were modified subsequently under the impugned order, to the effect that pending disposal there shall be a direction to the respondents to reserve one post of Transport Head Constable in favour of the applicant. Complaining that on the similar circumstances, the petitioners in W.P.NO.9012 of 2011 filed a similar such application before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal complaining that operation of Rule 13 of A.P. Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 2008 issued vide G.O.ms.No.71 TR&B (Ser.IV) Department dated 19-2-2009 to the extent of treating the post of Transport Head Constable in Transport Department as a zonal cadre post as illegal and violative of the aforesaid Presidential Order. Even though, according to the petitioners, their case runs virtually on the same lines as that of one in O.A.4612 of 2010 and sought for similar such direction, either to maintain status quo or to reserve a post to the applicant, the Tribunal did not accede thereto, but only ordered notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks. Therefore, having regard to the similarity on all aspects and the situation with which the petitioners in both the applications being one and the same, there is no reason as to why these petitioners also should not be entitled to a similar such direction. Heard Sri Poodatuu Amarender and Sri M. Ratna Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Transport and the learned Government Pleader for Services for State and for the contesting respondents. Having heard the counsel on either side and on perusal of the material, as already stated above, since these two Writs are only at the stage of interlocutory in both the applications filed under Section 19 of the A.P. Administrative Act, we are of the view that it is not necessary to go into the merits of the claim or to give any finding at this stage. Leaving open for the parties to canvass the same and the Tribunal to consider all the aspects on merits and in accordance with law, we are of the view that since in the similar circumstances and almost at the instance of similarly placed petitioners in the other case, the Tribunal having granted earlier an interim order of maintaining the status quo and the same is converted to reserve one post each, there is no reason to differ or to come to any different conclusion or to deny similar such relief. Admittedly, the question involved is one and the same in regard to the Presidential order, vis-à-vis, the post of Head Constable in the Police department. For the foregoing reasons, W.P.No.9012 of 2011 is accordingly allowed directing the respondents to reserve one post to the applicant till the disposal of the main O.A, and for the self same reason, we do not wish to interfere with the interim order granted by the Tribunal which is impugned in the other W.P.No.10422 of 2011, since it sufficiently protects the interest of the petitioners, till the disposal of the main O.A. Accordingly, the W.P.No.10422 of 2011 is dismissed. No costs. __________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J) __________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA,J) dated: 25 -04-2011 grk THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) WRIT PETITION Nos.9012 and 10422 of 2011 Dated: -04-2011 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA P.D.Judgment prepared by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao Circulated to Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla for perusal.