Unknown vs Order
2021 Latest Caselaw 4666 AP

                                1




       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

                     I.A.No.4 of 2021
                            in
              WRIT PETITION No.11437 of 2021


ORDER:

I.A.No.3 of 2021 is filed with a prayer to implead the

petitioners as respondents 4 to 6. As the reasons stated in the

accompanying affidavit are germane, this application is

allowed and the implead petitioners are impleaded as

respondents 4 to 6.

I.A.No.5 of 2021 is also filed with a prayer to implead the

petitioner as respondent. As the reasons stated in the

accompanying affidavit are germane, this application is

allowed to the extent of impleading the petitioner as

respondent No.7.

Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments

in the cause title.

I.A.No.4 of 2021 has been filed to vacate the interim

order, dated 24.06.2021, passed in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in

W.P.No.12271 of 2021.

The said order has been passed basing on similar orders

that were passed in other matters with regard to promotions.

The application was taken up for hearing since the Division

Bench directed this Court to take up the matter for hearing on

priority.

Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the vacate

petitioners/respondents 4 to 6, primarily points out that on

issues of these nature when promotions are stalled the Court

should not grant interim orders. It is his contention that the

main relief and consequential relief are virtually same and

what is being sought is notional promotion. Therefore, learned

counsel argues that granting of an interim order suspending

all the other promotions is not warranted in the circumstances.

He submits that the status quo was granted on the basis of

earlier orders which are later vacated. He also argues that

consequential reliefs which are sought to be claimed are also

not prayed for. Therefore, he submits that the Writ itself is not

maintainable.

Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the writ petitioners /

respondents herein argues that injustice was done to the writ

petitioners and that, therefore, it is being rectified. It is his

contention that the interim order will not cause any irreparable

loss to the vacate petitioners and that the situation can always

be rectified. It is his contention that the writ petitioners have

also better case on merits when compared to vacate petitioners

/ respondents.

During the course of hearing, in this matter and in

similar matters, lot of case law was brought to the notice of this

Court. The Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh

in a judgment reported in B.Nageswara Rao and Others v

Government of A.P., and others1 held that in the matters of

involving challenge to appointment, promotions, seniority etc.,

the element of public interest is against the grant of an interim

order. Only in very exceptional cases, it was held that an

interim order can be passed. A note of caution was sounded

in matters involving challenge to promotions etc., the Tribunal

or the Court is to be extremely careful. It is also held that if

the Tribunal is convinced that seniority of an employee has not

been fixed in accordance with law it can give a direction for

proper fixation of seniority if further directions for

consideration of his case for future promotions. To a similar

effect a judgment reported in Rana Randhir Singh and

Others v State of U.P. and Others 2 wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India clearly held that interim orders in such

matters should not ordinarily be made as the position can be

rectified if judgment is rendered. The Division Bench of this

Court in W.P.No.40119 of 2016 and Batch also held that one

and only interim order that can be passed in matters of

promotion is to hold that any promotion will be subject to the

result of the original application. In view of this case law which

is binding on this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the

petitioners are not entitled to any interim order at this stage

and continuation of the same is contrary to the law. an

extraordinary / exceptional case is also not made out. In fact,

2006 (4) ALD 649

AIR 1989 SC 218

the petitioner is seeking notional promotion also. The main

prayer is questioning the action of the respondents in not fixing

the notional seniority of the petitioners. In that view of the

matter, this Court is of the opinion that the interim order that

has been granted cannot be sustained. On a pure question of

law alone, the interim order is to be vacated. Factually also

the petitioner is not entitled to continuance of the Order. No

opinion is expressed on the merits of the matter.

With these observations I.A.No.4 of 2021 is allowed.

Interim order dated 24.06.2021 granted in I.A.No.2 of 2021 is

vacated.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date:16.11.2021.

Ssv