JUDGMENT : Battu Devanand, J. The present writ appeal is filed against the order dated 15.07.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.15983 of 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services – III appearing for the appellants and Sri A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. For convenience, the parties arrayed in the writ petition are referred herein. 4. The Writ Petition No.15983 of 2025 is filed against the proceedings dated 20.05.2025 issued by the respondent No.2, directing the respondent No.4 not to renew the services of the petitioner for the academic year 2025- 2026 as Junior Lecturer in Chemistry in the Government Junior College, Palasa, Srikakulam District. The undisputed facts in this case are that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.572/2024 of Kasibugga Police Station, Srikakulam District and the petitioner was arrested on 21.12.2024 and he was in judicial custody and subsequently he was enlarged on bail on 10.01.2025. Thereafter, he was allowed to join duty in the same college on 20.01.2025 and he is discharging the duties. After receipt of the complaint received by the District Collector, Srikakulam District, alleging that the petitioner got the job on fake certificate and he was involved in a criminal case, the respondent No.4 issued impugned proceedings dated 20.05.2025 directing the respondent No.2 not to renew the services of the petitioner for the academic year 2025-2026 on the ground that the petitioner has violated Clauses 11 and 14 of the Agreement of Contract of Service. 5. Having heard the submissions of both sides and taking into consideration of Clauses 11 and 14 of the Agreement of Contract of Service, the learned Single Judge held that the Clauses 11 and 14, which have been referred to, do not apply to the facts of the instant case. As the petitioner has not brought any pressure or unhealthy atmosphere in the college, the learned Single Judge observed that the non-renewal of contract hits the livelihood of petitioner and the dependent family would be in ruinous condition. As the petitioner has not brought any pressure or unhealthy atmosphere in the college, the learned Single Judge observed that the non-renewal of contract hits the livelihood of petitioner and the dependent family would be in ruinous condition. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge held that the same would amount to punishment even before guilt of the petitioner is adjudicated by the Criminal Court and accordingly interim direction was given to the respondents to verify and reconsider the contract of the petitioner for the academic year 2025-2026 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of the order. Against the said interim order, the present writ appeal is filed. 6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that after passing the interim order, as it was not complied, he initiated contempt proceedings against the respondents therein. After filing the contempt case, the respondents filed vacate petition and thereafter they filed this writ appeal. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would contend that as the vacate petition and contempt case are pending before the learned Single Judge, it is appropriate to dismiss this writ appeal with a direction to the learned Single Judge to hear the contempt case and vacate petition together. 7. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that as the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the Clauses of Contract of Service, the same has to be set aside by allowing this appeal. 8. This Court gave anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels and also on careful examination of the material available on record. Once the respondents filed vacate petition seeking to vacate the interim direction passed by the learned Single Judge, they have to pursue such remedy without filing this writ appeal. This type of initiation of multiple proceedings is one of the reasons for overburden to the Courts. As and when the vacate petition filed, if the learned Single Judge is proceeding with the contempt case without taking up the vacate petition, then one can understand that the respondents have some grievance to file the writ appeal, but when the learned Single Judge is considering to take up vacate petition and contempt case together, the respondents ought to have pursue those proceedings pending before the learned Single Judge by advancing their arguments in the vacate petition and the contempt case. 9. In view of the same, we are not inclined to interfere with the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, which is under challenge in the present writ appeal. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. The respondents can request the learned Single Judge to take up the vacate petition along with the contempt case expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.