High Court for State of TelanganaWP/19727/2010disposed of as infructuous

M.H. Chandra Sekhar, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

2015-10-27C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy3 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.19727 OF 2010 DATED:27-10-2015 Between:

M.H. Chandra Sekhar ... Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary to Government Education Department Secretariat Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad and others ... Respondents ... Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Mr. Abhinand Kumar Shavili COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 to 5: A.G.P. for School Education (TS) COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.6 and 7: Mr. Kowturu Vinaya Kumar COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO. 8 : Mr. Mohd. Gulam Rasool

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in directing maintenance of status quo in respect of the petitioner's transfer vide Memo No.2731/SE. PS.I/A1/2010, dt.14.6.2010, and the consequential proceedings No.16527/C5/2010, dt.14.7.2010 of respondent No.4, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the respondents to continue him at respondent No. 7 - St. Andrew's High School, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

The petitioner was working at Diocese of Dornakal, in Dornakal, Warangal District. On respondent No.6 approaching respondent No.1 for permission to transfer the petitioner to respondent No.7 school at Kothagudem, in place of respondent No.8 and vice versa, respondent No.1 has initially granted permission. But, by the impugned order respondent No.1 has kept its earlier proceedings in abeyance by directing the status quo to be maintained. Feeling aggrieved by this action, the petitioner filed this writ petition. By order dt.11.8.2010, this Court has granted interim order in favour of the petitioner on the strength of which he was transferred to respondent No.7 school and has been continuing since then. At the hearing, Mr. Mohd. Gulam Rasool, learned counsel for respondent No.8, submitted that his client has since retired.

In view of this subsequent event, the competing claim between the petitioner and respondent No.8 ceased to exist. Inasmuch as the petitioner has already been transferred to respondent No.7 school and working therein, no further adjudication of this writ petition is necessary.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.37350 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

_______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27-10-2015 bnr