The Acting Chief Justice dismissed three Writ Petitions as infructuous because the petitioners' services were already regularized by A.P.S.R.T.C, rendering the question of their initial appointment status no longer relevant.
All Writ Petitions dismissed as infructuous; Miscellaneous Petitions dismissed.
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 THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
Writ Petition Nos.19196, 19211 and 19327 of 2007
ORDER:
Sri S.V.Ramana, Learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C, on instructions, would submit that, since the petitioners’ services have already been regularized by the A.P.S.R.T.C and they are continuing in service, the cause in these Writ Petitions do not survive.
Since the petitioners’ services are said to have been regularized, and it is stated that they are still continuing in service as regular drivers of the A.P.S.R.T.C, the question whether they should have been appointed as contractor drivers or as casual drivers no longer survives, and all these Writ Petitions have become infructuous.
All these Writ Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
_________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ. Date:16.12.2016.
cs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petitions survive given that the petitioners' services have been regularized and they are continuing in service as regular drivers.
Petitioners (Drivers)
A.P.S.R.T.C
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
