THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.24101 of 2009 ORDER: (per VE, J) The petitioner along with others filed O.A.No.11187 of 2009 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) questioning the orders, dated 02.09.2009 and __.06.2009 vide DO.No.612/09 C.No.A1/2278/04-08 and C.No.1280/A1/09 respectively, passed by the third respondent – Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, fixing seniority of the fourth respondent just above the petitioner. A perusal of the order, dated 02.09.2009 goes to show that the said order was issued pursuant to the order, dated 23.12.2002 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.11017 of 2002 and as per the orders of the Government. It is the case of the petitioner that the order, dated 23.12.2002 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.11017 of 2002 is totally irrelevant for the purpose of assigning notional promotion to the fourth respondent and that the fourth respondent was appointed as APSP Constable on 16.05.1977, whereas the petitioner was appointed as APSP Constable on 15.03.1979. It is stated that by the time the fourth respondent was transferred to the District Armed Reserve, Kadapa in the month of April, 2001, the petitioner was already promoted and working as Head Constable and therefore, the fourth respondent cannot be given notional promotion over and above the petitioner. But, in O.A.No.11187 of 2009, the Tribunal, on 21.10.2009, while issuing notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks, held that any promotions would be subject to the result of the O.A. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner filed this writ petition contending that if the said order is not stayed, the fourth respondent will get promotion and thereby his right for promotion will be affected. In the impugned order, dated 21.10.2009, the Tribunal held that any promotion would be subject to the result of the O.A. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is remediless, even if any promotion is given in favour of the fourth respondent during the pendency of the O.A. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the fact that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is only interim in nature and as on this date, there is no order in favour of the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to dispose of O.A.No.11187 of 2009 after serving notice on the fourth respondent, in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J 30th NOVEMBER, 2009. ___________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J kvni