The filed Writ Petition seeking declaration regarding non-recognition of petitioner's services as Attender was dismissed by the court due to non-prosecution, as no representation was made by the petitioner on the listing date.
Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution.
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)
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 27841 OF 2005
Between:
...Petitioner AND
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed 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 particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to do service as Attender in the 5th respondent institution basing on the proceedings of the 1 St respondent vide D.Dis.No.12/53897/2000, dated 30-7-2002 and not regularizingthe services of the petitioner on par with the similarly situated persons appointed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings D.Dis.No.FI/25798/90, dated 25-9-1990, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, against the principles of natural justice, and pass such other order or orders.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WVMP. NO: 327 OF 2009)
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim ordersmade in WPMP No.35712/2005 dt. 29.10.2007 in WP No. 27841/2005 and to dismiss the writ petition as there are no merits.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K V N BHUPAL
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: V T M PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent No.5: N SHOBA
The Court made the following: ORDER
/y ■■
[3457]
APHC010539942005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 27841/2005
Between:
K.venkatesh Reddy, Chittoor District.
...PETITIONER
...RESPONDENT(S) The Commissioner Of Endowments Dept Hyd 4 Others and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.KVN BHUPAL
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.VT M PRASAD 2.K RAGHAVA CHARYULU 3.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
4.N SHOBA
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
** Hence, the matter There is no representation for the petitioner on was listed under the caption “for dismissal”. Even todayalso there is no representation for the petitioner.
. ^
stand closed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
//TRUE COPY//
SD/- K KASIRAO ACHAm
ASSISTAN^pISTRAR
f^SECTON OFFICER
To,
1. One CC to SRI
" " E^OWM^NTr Hi^h"co?rt of Andhra Pradesh
2 Two CCs to GP FOR
[OUT] SRI V T M PRASAD Advocate [OPUC]
3. OneCCto
SRI N SHOBA Advocate [OPUC]
4 OneCCto
5. Three CD Copies
csb
MH
high court
DATED:08/08/2024
ORDER
WP.No.27841 of 2005
OF
g 0 3 FEB 202!r
Current Section
dismissing the wp for non prosecution
i
K. Venkatesh Reddy
The Commissioner of Endowments
The Regional Joint Commissioner
The Assistant Commissioner
Sri Pedda Jeyangar Mutt
The Regional Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer
Harinath.N
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
