A writ petition filed by a State Road Transport employee seeking promotion was dismissed for non-prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear, despite multiple prior occasions of absence.
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)
MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 32783 OF 2014
Between:
E.K. Naidu, S/o. E. Guruvaiah Naidu, Aged about 52 years, Superintendent(F) (E-109940), O/o. The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Palamaneru Bus Depot, Chittoor District,A.P.
...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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not considering the promotion of the petitioner as Assistant Manager
t
(Finance) is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable and also contrary to the judgments of Apex Court by setting aside the remarks mentioned against the petitioner in Notification No. AD1/255(9)/2013-PO-ll dt. 21-11-2013 of 3rd respondent herein and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to the post of Asst. Manager (F).
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014fWPMP. NO: 40992 OF 20141
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (F) by suspending the Notification No. AD1/255(9)/2013-PO-ll dt. 21-11-2013 of 3rd respondent herein.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P VENKATESWAR RAO (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondents: SRI ARAVALA RAMA RAO (SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010001032014
0|f?0 COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ■ " 3 AT AMARAVATI 0^ ? (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
[3457]
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 32783/2014
Between: E.k. Naidu,
...PETITIONER AND The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ...RESPONDENTfSI and Others ' ' Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.PVENKATESWARRAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)
The Court made the following Order:
Despite the matter being listed under the caption for dismissal, today none represented for the petitioner, On earlier occasion also, therejvas no representation for the petitioner.
Therefore, this Writ Petition i IS dismissed for non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed.
Sd/- A VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
To,
[OPUC]
TF(gsg)
HIGH COURT
DATED:11/11/2024
ORDER
WP.No.32783of2014
^lofANDH^
lX
^ Ot APR 2® S
^ Currem seciion
DISMISSING THE W.P. FOR NON-PROSECUTION, WITHOUT COSTS
E.K. Naidu
The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
Harinath.N
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
