G. Guru Murthy, Hyd. v. Secy., A.P.State Election Commission, Sec-Bad. And 2 ORS.

II [ 3308 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT APPEAL NO: 1250 OF 2011 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 11.11.2011inW.P.No.1995of 20M, on the file of the HighCourt. Between:

G. Guru Murthy, S/o. Late Suryanarayana, Occ: Service R/o. Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND A.P. State Election Commission,3'd Floor, Bhudha Bhavan, Ranigunj M.G.Road, Secunderabad, rep. by its Secretary. Ir4.Shyam Babu, S/o. not known to Petitioners Service O/o. State Election Commission 3rd Floor, Bhudha Bhavan, Ranigunj M.G. Road, Secunderabad G.V. Sai Prasad, S/o.Late G. Pandu Ranga Rao Service R/o. Hyderabad. 2.

3.

(3'd Respondent is not necessary to the above Writ Appeal) ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 2 OF 2011(WAMP. NO: 2707 OF 20111 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent not to promote the 2nd respondent as Assistant Secretary pending the above Writ Appeal.

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. AKA VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI V.V. PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI T.D. PHANI KUMAR The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH Writ Appeal No.125O of 2OLL JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Justice Abhinand Kumar Shautli) When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had informed the Court that during the pendency of the litigation appellant was promoted as Desk Ofhcer in the State Election Commission and the appellant was claiming seniority over and above the un-official respondent.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant had informed the Court that during the pendency of litigation the un-official respondent has died, thus rendering the present Writ Appeal as infructuous.

3.

In view of the above submission, the Writ Appeal IS dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

4.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Appeal, shall stand close //TRUE COPY// sD/'cHbvfJlffirffH'iSH / SECTION OFFICER To, i, E* EE I E[i, t$ ifi1ffilffiflXffi4qfi*["J'n"'

4. Two CD CoPies

5. One SPare CoPY CHR BS

\ HIGH COURT DATED:3010812022 JDUGMENT STA 16, W.A.No.1250 of 2011 2 r- 'tii ffi ai a,, Lt- .,:

t . r.Cr DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT GOSTS o, o c\- 9v