← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/38755/2015withdrawn

V.Madhavi Latha, v. High Court Of Judicature At Hyderabad For The State Of

2016-02-25C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy,M.S.K.Jaiswal2 pages

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL WRIT PETITION No. 38755 OF 2015 Date: 25.02.2016 Between:

V. Madhavi Latha, Hyderabad.

..... Petitioner And:

High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Rep. by Registrar (Administration), and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D. Sunil Kumar for Smt. K. Udaya Sri Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Sri P. Ravi Prasad Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : GP for Home The Court made the following:

ORDER (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: "...to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd Respondents in not forwarding the L.P.C. and Service Register of the Petitioner to the 4th Respondent as illegal and arbitrary; (ii) declare the Order Roc. No. 313/2013-C-3, dated 20-6-2013 as illegal and misconceived; (iii) declare the Circular Roc. No. 2288/2001-C.I/3, dated 5-10-2001 does not come in the way of forwarding L.P.C.

and Service Register of the Petitioner to the 4th Respondent consequent on her selection and appointment in the 4th Respondent as a Junior Stenographer; and (iv) consequently direct the 1st and 2nd Respondents to forward the L.P.C. and Service Register of the Petitioner to the 4th Respondent." When the case came up before this Court on 22.02.2016, Sri D. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel representing Smt. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioner, requested for an adjournment for appropriately advising the petitioner.

Today, at the hearing, Sri D. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel representing Smt. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as withdrawn, WPMP No.49896 of 2015 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J ___________________________ M.S.K.JAISWAL, J Date: 25.02.2016 va