P. Narotham Reddy v. The Commissioner And Director Of Tribal Welfare
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD MONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF N/ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION (TR) NO: 3622 OF 2017 Betwee n:
P. Narotham Reddy, S/o. Pratap Reddy, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Superintendent, O/o. Deputy Director, Tribal Welfare, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.
...PETITIONER AND '1 . The Commissioner and Director of Tribal Welfare, State of Telangana, DSS Bhavan, I\,4asab Tank, Hyderabad.
2. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
..,RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of District Tribal Welfare Officer on the sole ground that the disciplinary proceedings are pending against the applicant vide Charge Memo in Rc.No.K11139/2015 dated 16.01.2015 of the 1st respondent (Allegations pertaining to the year 2009) as void, illegal and discriminatory and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of District Tribal Welfare Officer without reference to pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRIM. BHARAT SHAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-I|| The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI W.P.(TRI.No. 3622 OF 2OL7 ORDERi This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus' declaring in action of the respondents in not considering the promotion of the i ( petitioner to the post of District Tribal Welfare Officer on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings are pending against him vide Charge Memo in Rc.No.Kl/139/2015, dated 16.01.2O15, as void, illegal and discriminatory.
2.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-Ill for respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has already been promoted and also retired from his service and therefore, there is no further grievance of the petitioner and thus, this writ petition has become infructuous.
3. In, view of the above submission, this writ petitions is dismissed as infructuous.
4.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
SDIB.S TY ASSISTANT AVATHI ISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,'-'1. On" CC to SRI M. BHARAT SHAH' Advocate [OPUC]
2. IwoCCs to the e p ioi i"*i""s-lll' High Court for the State of Telangana' louTl
3. Two C.D. CoPies'
4. One SPare CoPY.
MRC SB Ctt \
HIGH COURT DATED:2810312022 _ -- -:'!
-{ E L":.
'?
.,-\ N"
?
l) s* i7ii * JLr cis
ORDER
'-i--=:- WP(TR).No.3622 of 2Q17 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS %ur,r.s