M.Rama Krishna. v. The Managing Director A.P.Scheduled Caste Co-Op Finance

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITON No. 3431 of 2001 O R D E R:

When the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for respondents stated that the writ petition is filed challenging the ratio of 2: 1 fixed by the respondents in effecting promotions to the post of Deputy Executive Engineers. Further, in all Engineering Departments in the State Government, the ratio is 3: 1, but in the instant case, the ratio of 2: 1 is specified for the benefit of Assistant Executive Engineers as well as Deputy Executive Engineers and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners.

2.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the said ratio is irrational, but it should be 1: 1. However, she stated that she has no instructions to argue the case on merits and that she is not in a position to contact the petitioner. 3.

In view of the above submissions, the cause in the writ petition does not servive for adjudication.

4.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 5.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ Petition shall stand closed.

________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 24th September, 2018 Mjl/ *