G.Chandraiah, J.

1. Challenging the order, dated 14.11.2013 passed in W.P.M.P.No.39506 of 2013 in W.P.No.31789 of 2013, whereunder the learned Single Judge granted interim suspension of the appointment of the 4th respondent to the post of Deputy Registrar, made in pursuance of the Notification dated 13.02.2013, the present writ appeal is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since the 4th respondent is eligible, he has been selected and appointed as the Deputy Registrar; and the interim stay granted by the learned Single Judge created administrative inconvenience; and hence the writ appeal is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, who is the petitioner in the writ petition, would submit that the impugned order passed in the W.P.M.P. No. 39506 of 2013 is only an interlocutory order and as such the writ appeal is not maintainable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a citation reported in Midnapore Peoples’ Co-operative Bank Ltd., & others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others (AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2190).

5. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would submit that in pursuance of the notification referred in the writ petition, the writ petitioner was not selected to the post of Deputy Registrar and the allegation made by the writ petitioner that the 4th respondent has not fulfilled the requisite qualifications, is not correct and untenable and he further submits that the interlocutory order has been passed and the 1st respondent in the writ appeal is one of the applicant along with the respondents 3 to 6, for the post of Deputy Registrar in the University of Hyderabad pursuant to the notification referred to in the affidavit and he obtained the impugned order of interim suspension and hence the same may be set aside.

6. From the material on record, it could be seen that pursuant to the notification, 4th respondent was selected to the post of Deputy Registrar. Questioning the appointment of the respondents 4 to 6, the writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner mainly contending that the 4th respondent does not fulfill the requisite qualification therefore he is not entitled to the post of Deputy Registrar. Counter has been filed by the respondent University contending that the 4th respondent is qualified, therefore, he has been appointed. The merits of the respective contentions need to be gone into during the course of hearing. The learned Single Judge passed only interlocutory order against which the present appeal is filed under Section 15 of the Letters Patent.

7. It is to be noticed that by passing the present interim order, the learned Single Judge has not finally decided the rights and obligations of the parties. Hence we are of the considered view that the present writ appeal is not maintainable. The Apex Court in the decision referred to supra while interpreting the word “Judgment” occurring in Section 15 of the Letters Patent held that interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of case which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a parties, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties, are not “Judgment” for the purpose of filing appeals provided under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The relevant portion of the judgment at paragraph Nos.12, 15 and 16 are extracted as under for better appreciation:

12. We will next consider as to whether an intra-court appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent was available against the interlocutory order dated 20-11-1998 containing the directions on merits of the dispute. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent provides for an appeal from a “judgment” of a Single Judge in exercise of original jurisdiction to a Division Bench. In Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania the scope of clause 15 of the Letters Patent was considered. This Court held: