The Registrar Acharya N.G Ranga ... vs Dr Burla Sunitha Venkata ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2750 AP

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: W.A.No.436 of 2023
                     PROCEEDING SHEET
SL.     DATE                           ORDER                      OFFICE
NO.                                                                NOTE
02.   02.05.2023 DVSS, J & BVLNC,J

                               I.A.No.1 of 2023

                         The matter was argued at length by
                both the learned counsels. Case law is
                also cited on either side.
                         Learned counsel for the appellants
                relied      upon       the   Division   Bench
                Judgment of the High Court of Andhra
                Pradesh at Hyderabad in "Mohammed
                Azharuddin Vs. Dr.G.Vivekanand and
                others reported in 2018 (4) ALT 226
                (D.B.)" with regard to the maintainability
                of the writ appeal filed under Clause 15
                of   the     Letters     Patent   against   the
                interlocutory order. It is his contention
                that in the impugned order, the learned
                Judge directed reinstatement of the writ
                petitioner.    He also points out that the
                contract of employment ended in August
                2022 and by this order, she has been
                reinstated into service on 23.02.2023.
                Therefore, he submits in line with the
                judgment cited by him and relying upon
                the fact that at an interlocutory stage
 SL.   DATE                        ORDER                        OFFICE
NO.                                                             NOTE
             reinstatement is given, the order may be
             stayed. Learned counsel by relying upon
             the      said     judgment     argues      that
             interference under Clause 15 of the
             Letters Patent is permissible.       He also
             stresses that there are no reasons in the
             order.
                   In reply, learned counsel for the
             respondent by relying upon the judgment

of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in "Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. K.Suresh reported in 2014 (3) ALT 73" argues that only an interim order is passed and that the same will not amount to the judgment, which will finally determine the issue. Therefore, he contends that the appeal itself is not maintainable.

Learned counsels also made an attempt to argue on the merits of the matter which in the opinion of this Court does not require consideration at this stage. In view of the issues raised, this Court is of the prima facie view that there shall be suspension of the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the learned single Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE W.P.No.4525 of 2023 to enable the learned counsel for the respondent to file his counter and argue the matter. The issues raised require a detailed hearing.

Accordingly, this petition is ordered.

W.A.No.436 of 2023

List this case on 10.05.2023 for counter in the motion list.

Learned Counsel for the respondent is also requested to serve the counter in advance on the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants.

__________ DVSS,J

_________ BVLNC,J

ANI SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE