APHC010585832024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3509] FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 31490/2024 Between: Jodhraj Bairawa and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Central Administrative Tribunal and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NEHEMIAH PERIKE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 31490/2024 ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J) Heard Sri K.Manickaraj, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing through virtual mode. 2. The petitioners were granted promotion by an order dated 27.12.2019. Respondent Nos.6 to 9 feeling aggrieved for such promotion filed OA.No.736 of 2020 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. They also filed MA.No.32 of 2024, on which, the Tribunal passed interim order on the order of the promotion and suspended the said order to the extent of the promotion of the present petitioners. In compliance of the said order, the official respondents passed memorandum dated 10.10.2023, and reverted the petitioners to substantive post of LP(Shunter Gr-II) in Level-4 with immediate effect also providing that the said order was provisional and subject to the final outcome of OA.No.736 of 2020 and other court cases, if any, pending before various courts of law on the policy of reservation. 3. Challenging the said order, by way of interim application in the same OA.No.736 of2020, the petitioners filed MA.No.430 of 2023. The Tribunal considering the same and observing that the said OA was filed by the present respondents and subsequent action was taken by the department pursuant to the interim order passed in said OA, therefore, MA at the instance of present 3 petitioners was not maintainable but provided that if the present petitioners were aggrieved from the action of the official respondents, they could approach the appropriate forum by way of appropriate application. Recording the same, the petitioners’ application was dismissed. 4. Challenging the said order passed on 01.02.2024, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the interim order was time bound. He further submits that since the petitioners have already been promoted they could not be reverted. 6. A perusal of the interim order (P5) dated 23.11.2020, in our view does not show that it was a time bound interim order. 7. Further in compliance of the interim order, some orders were passed. So, we are of the view that the remedy of the petitioners was to challenge the said order by way of appropriate proceedings, before appropriate forum. They might have also applied for the vacation of the interim order. 8. We are further of the view that the order under challenge is dated 01.02.2024. This petition has been filed belatedly. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out in which para, the laches in filing writ petition have been explained. He submits that the laches have not been explained in the writ petition. 4 9. For the aforesaid reasons there is no illegality in the order under challenge. 10. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN,J Dated: 03.01.2025 AG 5 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 31490/2024 Dated:03.01.2025 AG