The High Court held that no live issue survives for adjudication when unofficial respondents were promoted and subsequently retired after the Tribunal dismissed their appeal. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed.
Dismissed both Writ Petitions without 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.
[32es ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTE]VBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION NOS: 17572 AND 17776 0F 2004
WP NO: 17572 OF 2004
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
( RR 11 & 12 impleaded as per court order dt. 21-9-2005 in WPI\4P.No. 353/05. )
(Conditional Order dt. 20.O4.2O11 have not complies. Hence given effect to RR3, 7 & 10 as dismissed for default.)
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toissue a writ order or driection more in the anture of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal dt 24-9-2004 in O.A. No. 4077 of 2004 and quash the same by holding it as illegal, bad and arbitrary and further direct the respondents not to consider the case of therespondents 3 to 10 for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer and further direct the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioenr sfor promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer by declaring the action of the respondents as illegal, bad and arbitrary.
l.A. NO: 3 OF 2004(WPMP. NO: 23015 OF 2004)
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 suspend the order of the Hon'ble A.P. administrative Tribunal dt 24-9-2004 in O.A. No. 4077 of 2004
l.A. NO: 4 OF 20Q4(WPMP. NO: 23016 OF 2004)
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 direct the respondents not to promote the respondents 3 to 10 as Deputy Executive Engineers
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004(WVMP. NO: 3816 oF 2004)
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
( RR 11 & 12 impleaded aspercourt orderdt. 21-9-2005in WPMP No' 353/05.)
(conditional order dt. 20.o4.2O11have not complies. Hencegiven effect to hn:, z a 10 as dismissedfor default.)
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Section151 CPCprayingthat in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filedin support of the petition, the Highcourt maybe pleasedto vacate the interim ordersdated:29-09-2004in writ petition'
I.A. NO: 2 OF 2004(WVMP.NO:38 17 0F 20041
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
( RR 11 &'12 impleaded as per court order dt. 21-9-2005 in WPMP.No. 353/05.)
(Conditional Order dt. 20.O4.2O11 have not complies. Hence given effect to RR3, 7 & 10 as dismissed for default.)
...RESPONDENTS
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 vacate the interim orders on 29-9-2004 in writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. J R MANOHAR RAO(NONE APPEARED)
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES I
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5: SRl. K S V SUBBA RAO
Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 6, 8 & 9: SRl. P V SUBRAMANYA SHARMA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 11 & 12:.
WP NO : 17776 OF 2004
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiapraying thatin the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, theHigh Courtmay be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the erecords relating to the order ofthe Hon'bleA.P. Administrative Tribunal Dl. 24.9.2004 in O.A.No.4814 of 2OO4andquash the sameby holding it as illegal, bad, arbitrary, and contrary towell settled principles oflaw.
l.A. NO: 3 OF 2004(WPMP. NO: 23289OF 2004)
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstatedin the affidavlt filed in support of thepetition,the High Court may be pleased Suspend the order of the Hon'bleA.P. AdministrativeTribunaldt. 24.9.2004in O.A.No.4814 of 2OO4.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004(WVMP. NO: 3818 0F 2004)
Between:
...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS NO. 1 & 4IN THE WP
AND
.,.RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS NO. 2, 3, 5 & 6 IN THE WP
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 vacate the interim orders on 29-9-2004 in writ petition.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2005(WVMP. NO : 1346 OF 2005)
Between:
P. Rama Nlr.tf,y , S/o- Yellajah, Assistent Executive Engineer, Office of txecuttve Engtneer, Special lr,4.l. Division, Eturunegaram, Warangal District.
...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO. 5
AND
l0.Engineer-in-Chief(Admn. Wing) lrrgation and CAD Dept.,, Erramanzil,Hyd
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AND 6 TO 8
petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed insupport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim orderspassed on 29-09-2004 in WPIVP No. 23289 of 2004in WP No. 17776 of 2004
Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. J R MANOHAR RAO (NONE APPEARED)
Counsel for the RespondentNos. 3 & 6: SRI K S V SUBBARAO
Counsel for the RespondentNos. 1 & 4: SRI P V SUBRAHMANYA SARMA
Counset for the RespondentNo. 5: SRl. A VENKATESWARARAO
Counsel for the RespondentNos. 7 & 8: GP FOR IRRIGATION& CAD
The Court made thefollowing:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE BHITYAN AND
THE HON'B SRI JUSTICE C.V. REDDY
Writ Petition Nos. t7572 and' L7776 of2OO4
COMMON ORDERZper the Hon'bte the ChiefJustice tJjjat Bhusan)
None has appeared for the petitioners, though Mr. K.V.S.Subba Rao, learned counsel ispresent for the unofficial respondents.
2
case of the writ petitioners for promotion to the post of
Deputy Executive Engineer.
J
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
//TRUE COPY//
SD/. N. RAJ GOPAL ASSISTANT RE fisrRAR CT'r'--
SECTION OFF!CER
To,
PM GJP t-' d
HIGH COURT
DATED:0610912022
COMMON ORDER
WP.No.17572 & 17776 of 2004
3'rAr$
q
o ll
C) [ 4 JAt{ ?08
* {i
pp.*
Dismissing the WPs without costs.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a live issue survives for adjudication when applicants are declared unmeritorious by the Administrative Tribunal and have subsequently retired.
G. Prasad
V. Jagadeesh
B. Gopal Krishna Rao
State of A.P.
Ujjal Bhuyan
C.V. Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
