S. Srinivasa Rao S/O Late Keshava Rao v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN (07.04.2016) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL WRIT PETITION No.10646 of 2016 Between:

S.Srinivasa Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.K.RAM REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.P.for Services (AP) The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL WRIT PETITION No.10646 of 2016 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This writ petition is filed for certiorari to quash the order dated 25.01.2016, in O.A.No.7242 of 2015 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

In the manner the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of by this Court, it is not necessary to record detailed facts. Briefly put, the grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent No.3 has sent proposals for revising seniority in the cadre of Excise Inspectors as far back as November, 2013, respondent No.2 has not finalized the same and fixed the final seniority, and instead he is seeking to proceed with further promotions to the post of Excise Superintendents. The O.A. filed by the petitioner was dismissed on a technical ground.

When the writ petition came up before the court in the prelunch session, the case was passed over to enable the Government Pleader for Services (A.P) to secure the instructions as to the reason for not considering the proposals sent by respondent No.3 in November, 2013. In the post lunch session, the learned Government Pleader submitted that respondent No.2 is undertaking the exercise and he will complete the same within a reasonable time. She has further stated that till the proposals of respondent No.3 are not finalized, respondent No.2 will not

undertake the process of promotions to the posts of Excise Superintendents.

The above noted submissions of the learned Government Pleader are placed on record, and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.13417 of 2016, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J __________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL,J Date: 07.04.2016 Dsr