High Court for State of TelanganaWP/19991/2004dismissed as infructuous

Somasundar Rao S/O Ramulu v. The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By

2017-08-31C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy,Gudiseva Shyam Prasad2 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD W.P.No. 19991 OF 2004 DATED 31ST AUGUST, 2017 Between:

I.Somasundar Rao ...

Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Higher Education (TE-II) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and others ...

Respondents Counsel for the petitioner :

Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 :

G.P. for Services (T.S.) Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 :

Sri P.Bala Krishna Murthy THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING

CVNR, J. & GSP, J.

wp_19991_2004 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: "For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying this Writ Petition, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction, specially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari: (i) Calling for the records pertains to O.A.1378/1999 dt. 23/3/04 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same.

(ii) Consequently, declare G.O.Rt.No. 272 Edn. (TE-II) Dept. dt. 21-31999 issued by the first respondent and all other consequential proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same by directing the official respondents to affect the promotions to the post of Head of Section strictly basing on the final intersay (sic) seniority list communicated vide circular No. G3/41477/98 dt. 30-1-1999 issued by the first respondent and (iii) pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 2.

At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader for Services (T.S.) as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 submitted that both the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have retired from services and that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication.

In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.

__________________________ Date: 31-08-2017.

GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J.

JSK