Smt.N.Leelavathi, Wanaparthy v. Nsr Murthy, Secunderabad And 6 Others

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.1118 of 2017 Between:

Smt.N.Leelavathi ..Appellant and NSR Murthy and others ..Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Mrs.B.Rajeswari for Mr.K.V.Rajasree Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5: Dr.K.Lakshmi Narasimha Counsel for respondent No.6: Mr.G.Vidya Sagar, senior counsel Counsel for respondent No.7: Government Pleader for Energy (T.S.) The Court made the following:

CVNR,J & GSP,J W.A.No.1118 of 2017 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This writ appeal is filed against ad interim order of the learned Single Judge, whereby he has suspended the promotion given to the appellant as the Superintending Engineer in respondent No.6 power utility.

2.

At the hearing, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that a Division Bench of this Court speaking through one of us (CVNR,J) disposed of a batch of cases in P.B.Karunakar and others vs. State of Telangana and others1 declaring the unilateral action of Telangana power utilities, including respondent No.6, in preparing seniority list excluding certain employees on the basis of their nativity as illegal and that the said judgment is carried in appeal before the Supreme Court, wherein on the basis of consensus reached among all the parties, an order of status quo has been passed. It is also evident from the perusal of the record that the order of the learned Single Judge impugned in this writ appeal is not stayed or suspended.

3.

In these facts and circumstances of the case, the necessity for adjudication of the legality or otherwise of the impugned ad interim order is obviated.

1 2018(3) ALD 470 = 2018 (2) ALT 671

CVNR,J & GSP,J W.A.No.1118 of 2017 4.

The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of, however, with the observation that the right of the appellant for promotion as the Superintending Engineer in pursuance of the order impugned in W.P.No.24196 of 2017 will depend upon the outcome of the cases pending before the Supreme Court.

5.

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P.No.2126 of 2017 filed by the appellant for interim relief stands disposed of as infructuous.

_________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J ___________________________ GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J 03rd August, 2018 GHN