The High Court of Andhra Pradesh adjudicated a writ petition challenging denial of promotion. The respondent counsel argued the petitioner had attained superannuation age, rendering the petition infructuous. The court dismissed the writ petition without costs as it had no surviving cause of action.
None; the petition was dismissed as infructuous.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRUUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 1732fi OF 9ni9
Between:
P. Venkateswarlu, S/o. Subbarayudu, Aged 49 Years E.400693, Superintendent (P), W.M's Office, Zonal Workshops, A.P.S.R T C., Kadapa.
...PETITIONER
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 appropriate writ order direction especially in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not communicating the adverse remarks and consequently not selecting the petitioner promotion to the post of Asst. Manager (P) as arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of procedure, articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and direct them to promote him on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits.
LA. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 22189 OF 2012^
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 2"*^ Respondent to reconsider my Petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Asst. Manager (P) on par with this juniors in view of his non-selection violating the principles of natural justice and Circulars.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATA RAMAIAH KARUMURI
(NOT- PRESENT)
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K. VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No. 17328 OF 2012
ORDER:
present and submitted that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and hence, nothing survives further for adjudication.
To,
//TRUE COPY//
Cnr
MBT
HIGH COURT
DATED: 25/01/2024
ORDER
WP.No.17328 of 2012
DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the non-selection of the petitioner for promotion remains maintainable given his attainted age.
P. Venkateswarlu
Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R T C
Harinath.N
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
