Interlocutory orders can be appealable if they materially affect rights; review jurisdiction is limited to errors visible on the record.

ORDER :

Anand Pathak, J.

1. The present review petition is preferred by the review petitioner in respect of order dated 20th January 2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.54/2025 (Anil Kumar Trivedi Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others), whereby the writ appeal preferred by the appellant - Anil Kumar Trivedi (respondent No.1 herein) is disposed of remanding the matter back to the learned Writ Court.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent No.1 at the relevant point of time was working as Uchcha Madhyamik Shikshak and under the policy of State Government, he was appointed as Block Resource Center Coordinator (BRCC) on deputation basis vide order dt.28.12.2022. The other persons out of same deputation order dt.28.12.2022 are continuing to hold their respective post of BRCC in different places. However, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent No.1 levelling frivolous charges. He replied to the show cause notice denying the allegations levelled against him. Without considering the reply to the notice, the order of repatriation dt.17.12.2024 has been issued and on the same date another order has been issued by which the current charge to the post of BRCC has been given to the present review petitioner. Therefore, he preferred W.P.No.41015/2024.

3. Learned Writ Court vide order dated 06.01.2025 issued notices to the respondents, however, the prayer for interim relief has not been considered. Therefore, respondent No.1 filed Writ Appeal No.54/2025 against the aforesaid order.

4. It was the submission of respondent No.1 before Writ Appellate Court that once the Single Bench issued notice to respondents, non grant of interim relief will amount to rejection of interim relief without giving any reason as the entire petition itself will be rendered infructuous by the time it will be heard finally.

5. Writ Appellate Court vide order dated 20.01.2025 remanded the matter back to the learned Writ Court with a request to consider the case as expeditiously as possible in which respondents shall file reply within 2-3 weeks and learned Writ Court would try to make all endeavours to decide the case at an expeditious note, so that parties may come to know about the fate of the litigation at the earliest.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, review petitioner preferred instant review petition on the ground that no appeal lies against an interlocutory order. The order passed by the learned Writ Court is only an order of issuance of notice. Thus, the orders in which only notices are issued and interim relief is not considered shall not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Therefore, no writ appeal was maintainable against the order of issuance of notice only. It is neither a final order nor an order having trappings of final order nor it decides any valuable right of party. It is further submitted that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the review petitioner as in the order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the learned Writ Court, name of counsel for the review petitioner was mentioned but no copy of the writ appeal was supplied to the counsel.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 as well as learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State submit that there is no error apparent on the phase of the record. It was an intra court appeal and therefore, the power is available to the appellate court to exercise the power just like writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution. They pray for dismissal of the review petition.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and