Writ petition challenging age limit fixed in a cooperative bank's recruitment notification for Staff Assistants/Clerks. Counsel stated the cause did not survive further. The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous with 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 26816 OF 9011
Between;
Payakaraopeta P.A.C.S. Limited, Payakaraopeta Post and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
...Petitioners
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 a Writ, order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notification of the 3rd respondent Bank dated 04.09.2011 for appointment of Staff Assistants/Clerks in so far as Clause B is concerned in fixing age limit as 45 years as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative societies act and rules made there under and consequently direct the 3rd respondents Bank to consider the case of the petitioners for the said posts.
yv. NO: 2 OF 2012(WPIVIP. NO: 3QQ20 OF 2012)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated i n the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent Bank to issue the appointment order to the petitioner for the post of Staff Assistant as per the waitlisted selection list dated 26-06-2012 of the Notification dated 4-9-2011 forthwith by duly filling up the one vacant post which was earmarked for the in-service candidate working in the PACS pending further orders in the writ petition
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. L V S NAGARAJU
Counsel for the Respondents No.s 1&2 : GP FOR COOPERATION
Counsel for the Respondents No. 3 :
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010159662011
•I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 26816/2011
Between:
Bupathiraju Srinivasa Raju and Others
...PETITIONER(S)
(
AND
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.L VS NAGARAJU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR COOPERATION
The Court made the following:
2
^ Order:-
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive any further. Hence, the matter has become infructuous.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR f^CTK^I^fo FFICER
To.
MSST
HIGH COURT
DATED:12/11/2024
ORDER
WP.No.26816 of 2011
^ 2 ^ APR 2D25 . Current Section
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bupathiraju Srinivasa Raju
Pinapatruni Nagabhushanam
Eranki Rama Rao
Pitta Chalapathi Rao
R. Srihari Rao
Kethireddy Srinivas Rao
Harinath.N
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
