The High Court dismissed two writ petitions by the petitioner challenging his non-promotion to the post of Line Inspector. The court held that the petitions had become infructuous and dismissed them accordingly without costs.
Dismissal of the writ petitions 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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE { AT HYD JJfJEOF TELANGANA (Speciat Ori ginal .fuiis-oiction;
MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND rWENriOrrrJ''-'''
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
Between:
WRIT PETITIO NO 52 60F 08
Power Distribution IVl. A. Quadar. S/o. Mohd tshq,.Working as Lineman Oio.AE company6i AF licl, 3rir.]un?g;;'r,.,ti.urabad (operation),Disi Northern AND ...PETITIONER
1 The Chairman & IVanaoino Djrector, Northern power Distribution Company of Ap 2 f jiir"iid::,ft1:1fl:gr!nn'n""roperation, l_d^ I ry, T-ES per ro r p"u m"p, S, lh " d ; ;i H ;;;;,Norrhern ki n ipower " "w mu oisiiioution n g u r company 1 The Divisional Enoineer/ooeration, Northern power Distribution company of Ap Ltd., Sadasivnagai Nizamjbad Disi
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia 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 especially one the nature of writ of N/andamus
i declaring the action of the respondents in not considering petitioner,s case for promotion to the post of Line lnspector, on the ground that Urdu AIim of lndara-EAdabia-E-Urdu is not equivalent to SSC as illegal and arbitrary
ii consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Line inspector w.e.f. 17-4-2006 duly granting all other consequently benefits
WPMP. NO: 6796 OF 2008
Petition under Section 15'1 CPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, theHigh Court may be pleased to the direct the respondents to considerpetitioner'scase for promotion to the post of Line lnspector in proceedings in the ensuingDPC duly treating the petitioner'scase as educationallyqualifed pendingdisposal of the above WP
Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI K. VASUDEVA REDDY
Counsel for Respondents:SRI P. R. BALARAMIREDDY
(SC FOR AP TRANSCO)
The Court made the following:ORDER
THE HON'BLESRI JUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI
P
o RDER:
1 . Leamedcounsel for the petitionerhas informed the Courl that
the writpetitionhas become infiuctuous'
infructuous.No orderas to costs'
3 Pendingmiscellaneouspetitions, if any, shallstarciclosed'
SD/. K. AMMAJI
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To 1. One CC to Sri K Vasudeva ReddyAdvocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri P R Balarami Reddy, SCfor AP TRANSCO [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies 4. One Spare copy MBC TP "$:-
HIGHCOURT
DAT lD:1310912021
i': S- iA ix.
).
t(
C) 0 7 0cl202l 6)Z iitl
.,1n
t':--,.-^t-
ORDER
WP.ltlo.5236 of 2008
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS
INFRUCTUOUS, WITHOUT COSTS @ )3</sup> -, \o></sup>
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging non-promotion of the petitioner needs to be adjudicated upon
Whether the writ petitions are infructuous and require dismissal
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M. A. Quadar
The Chairman & Managing Director, Northern power Distribution Company of Ap Ltd.
The Divisional Engineer
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
