Petition challenging illegal promotions was dismissed as infructuous because the petitioners had already been promoted and a third petitioner had expired.
None granted; petition 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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No. 9677 of 1999
ORDER:
The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 03.04.1999, as arbitrary and illegal and to direct the respondents to strictly follow the principles laid down in W.P.No.11599 of 1993, dated 22.09.1998, while making promotions to the posts of Upper Division Clerks.
Though the Writ Petition is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’ neither the counsel for the petitioners is present nor is there any representation on his behalf.
Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the AP Transco, would submit that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have been promoted as Upper Division Clerks in 2000 and 2001 respectively and were promoted to the next higher post of Junior Accounts Officer in 2005 and 2006 respectively. He would submit that the third petitioner expired.
Recording the said submission that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J
Date:23.09.2010 usd
Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2
AP Transco
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
