Dr. A.V. Ramana Deekshltulu, v. Archakam Venugopala Deekshitulu,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT APPEAL No. 1400 of 2016 JUDGMENT: (Per VRS,J) Aggrieved by an interim order passed by the learned single Judge directing the 2nd respondent herein-Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam to consider the representation made by the writ petitioner/1st respondent herein, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition has come up with the above writ appeal.

2.

Heard Mr. P. Venu Gopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Smt. K. Lalitha, learned standing counsel for Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam, takes notice for the 2nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments (AP) takes notice for the 3rd respondent.

3.

The 1st respondent herein filed a writ petition in W.P.No.39804 of 2016, seeking a mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent-Devastanam to consider his claim for promotion as Pradhana Archaka/Senior Archaka in the Devastanam. Pending the writ petition, he sought an

interim direction in W.P.M.P.No.49044 of 2016, seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent-Devastanam to consider his claim. 4.

While ordering notice in the writ petition, the learned Judge passed an interim order to the following effect: "Smt. K.Lalitha, learned counsel, takes notice for 1st respondent. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments takes notice for 2nd respondent.

Personal notice is permitted on 3rd respondent. Pending further orders, the 1st respondent shall consider petitioner's representation dt.21-06-2016 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate his decision thereon to the petitioner." 5.

Aggrieved by the said order, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition has come up with the above writ appeal, on the short ground that the interim direction would virtually tantamount to allowing the writ petition at the stage of admission.

6.

The learned senior counsel is partly right, though not fully, in his contention that the interim direction would tantamount to allowing the writ petition. Though the learned Judge has directed the Devastanam only to consider the representation of the 1st respondent, the very question, as to whether the claim was liable to be and the claim was capable of being adjudicated by the Devastanam, is something that has not yet been adjudicated in the writ petition. A

claim for promotion made by a person is obliged to be considered, only if the person, who makes a claim, has a right to be considered for promotion. So long as such a right is not tested, the interim direction may have, though not always, but at least some times, the effect of allowing the writ petition itself.

7.

Therefore, we are of the considered view that the order of the learned single Judge could be modified, so that the rights of both parties are saved. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of, and the interim order of the learned Judge is modified to the following effect:

1) It is open to the 2nd respondent-Devastanam to consider the representation of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, dated 21.06.2016, and to pass orders, as directed by the learned single Judge.

2) If the order is in favour of the 1st respondent, the same shall not be implemented, until the writ petition is disposed of.

3) In case the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Devastanam is against the 1st respondent, it will be open to the 1st respondent to challenge the same.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J _________________ A.V. SESHA SAI, J.

19th December, 2016 cbs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN √ AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI Writ Appeal No. 1400 of 2016 (Per VRS,J) 19th December, 2016 cbs