JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 22-2-2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 16330 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the learned Judge while holding that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) directed:
“… The interim order dated 5-9-2000 passed by this Court directing the 3rd respondent not to cancel the provisional selection of the petitioner in Group-I Services vide Registration No. 92713280 shall be valid for a period of six weeks.”
2. The writ petitioner-4th respondent filed a writ petition inter alia for the following relief:
“… to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Taluk Office, Guntur, in not issuing the permanent S.T. Caste Certificate “Konda Kapu” to the petitioner as per the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 561/89 dated 1st July, 1991 on the file of the III Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, is bad in law, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondent to issue permanent S.T. Caste Certificate, Konda Kapu to the petitioner.”
3. The appellant got himself impleaded as a party respondent.
4. Having regard to the fact that the writ petitioner in some and substance prayed for his recruitment, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that his grievance comes within the purview of Section 19 of the Act. While passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held thus:
“Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the petitioner to approach the District Collector or the Revenue Divisional Officer, as the case bay be under Section 16(5) of Act 16 of 1993 for issue of a Caste Certificate. The petitioner is at liberty to place all the relevant documents for the purpose of establishing bona fides of the fact that she is a Scheduled Tribe candidate. The petitioner is also directed to approach the A.P. Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such filing of O.A., the A.P. Administrative Tribunal shall entertain the application and pass appropriate interim orders on the merits of the case….”
5. The point at issue is as to whether the learned Single Judge, while declining to exercise his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and relegating the writ petitioner to approach the Administrative Tribunal for an appropriate direction, can grant interim directions.
6. The answer to the said question must be rendered in negative. The Court or Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction to pass an interim order when it comes to the conclusion that the main petition itself was not maintainable. This aspect of the matter is covered by a decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in The State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, wherein it has been categorically held:
“….An interim relief can be granted only in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief which may be available to the party on final determination of his rights in a suit or proceeding. If the Court was of opinion that there was no other convenient or adequate remedy open to the petitioners, it might have proceeded to investigate the case on its merits and come to a decision as to whether the petitioners succeeded in establishing that there was an infringement of any of their legal rights which entitled them to a Writ of Mandamus or any other directions of alike nature; and pending such determination it might have made a suitable interim order for maintaining the status quo ante. But when the Court declined to decide on the rights of the parties and expressly held that they should be investigated more properly in a civil suit, it could not, for the purpose of facilitating the institution of such suit, issue directions in the nature of temporary injunctions, under Article 226 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the language of Art.226 does not permit such an action. On that short ground the judgment of the Orissa High Court under appeal cannot be upheld.”
7. Having regard to the aforementioned authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, we are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The writ appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside accordingly. However, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the writ petitioner-respondent shall be entitled to file an application for grant of interim relief before the appropriate authority.
8. No order as to costs.