Writ petition challenging non-appointment of petitioners in vacancies was closed by the High Court as petitioners were not contactable, leaving them to take further steps if advised.
Writ petition closed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 24368 OF 2003
Between:
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ Petition of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondent in not appointing the petitioners in the existing vacancies as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to appoint the petitioners in pursuance of the orders passed in C.C.No. 1452/1997 dated 18.11.1999.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2003(WPMP. NO: 30677 OF 20031
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to appoint the petitioners in the existing vacancy
in pursuance of the orders passed in C.C.No. 1452/1997 dated 18.11.1999 forthwith pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. O. M. R. LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI. B.V.KRISHNA REDDY(STANDING COUNSIL FORTTD)
The Court made the following: ORDER
▼
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION No.24368 of 2003
ORDER:
The petitioners are challenging the in-action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioners in theexisting vacancies of the respondent Devasthanam. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not contactable inspite of the bestefforts.Asthe petitioners are not contactable to the learned counsel for the petitioners and as this matter was adjourned on several occasions to enable the learned counsel for the petitioners to ascertain whether the cause in the Writ Petition survivesornot. As by efflux of time, the cause in the Writ Petitionwouldnot survive.
for 3. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel the petitioners, the Writ Petition is closed, leavingitopentothe petitioners to take steps if so adviced. No order astocosts.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,shall
stand closed.
Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTTON OFFICER
To, 1. One CC to SRI. O. M. R. LAW FIRM Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI. B.V.KRISHNA REDDY(STANDING COUNSILFOR TTD) Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three C.D.Copies nm
■,HiC
/>
HIGH COURT
DATED:20/12/2023
ORDER
WP.No.24368 of 2003
GLOSSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
P. Ramachandra Reddy
K. Venkatesulu
Jayamma
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam
Harinath N
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
