Petitioners challenged respondents for not appointing them to vacant Junior Lineman posts on contract, but the writ petition was closed as infructuous since some petitioners had already been appointed during pendency.
Writ petition closed 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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.18171 of 2011
ORDER:
The petitioners approached this Court for declaration that the action of the respondents in not considering their cases for appointment as Junior Lineman in the existing vacancies on contract basis as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Reference is made to the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in an earlier round of litigation and implementation thereof.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
It is brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have appointed petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 as Junior Linemen on contract basis. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, it is stated that the verification is being undertaken in view of the discrepancy as to the social status.
Hence, the writ petition is closed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
L.NARASIMHA
REDDY,J
Dt:01.08.2011
kdl
Petitioners
Respondents
L. Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
