Dismissed

M. Narsimhulu, Medak Dist. v. the High Court of A.P. Hyd. and Another

Telangana HC21 Oct 2022WP/3790/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired Superintendent, filed writ petitions seeking declaration of interview results and promotion. The High Court closed the petitions noting the petitioner had attained superannuation age, rendering further relief untenable and costing him nothing.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed without costs as petitioner had retired upon attaining superannuation age.

M. Narsimhulu, Medak Dist. Vs the High… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

I.IIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERAAAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 3790 OF 2olo

¶6

Between:

¶7

M. NARSIMHULU, MEDAK DIST., S/o. Late Balaiah Sr. Asst. Senior Civit Judges Court, Zaheerabad Medak District, R/o. Zaheerabad Village & Mandal I\iledak District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

I TIE Hrgh Court Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Registrar-General, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad

¶11

The District & Sessions Judge, Medak District, Sanga Reddy

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in ttre circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not declaring the results of interview held on 4-9-2009 for the post of Superintendent and not promoting the petitioner as Superintendent inspite of his being qualified as arbitrary illegal and has the effect of violation of Fundamentat Rights guaranteed to the petitioner ula 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently give directions to the 2nd respondent to declare the results of interview heh on 4-9-2009 for the post of Superintondent and to give promotion to the petitioner as Superintendent.

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010{WPMP. NO: 4935 OF 2010

¶15

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 direct the 2nd respondent to forthwith declare the results of interview held on 4- 9-2009 for the post of Superintendent and give promotion to the petitioner as Superintendent.

¶16

I I

¶17

HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶18

W.p.No.3790 OF 2010

¶19

ORDER: (Per lfon,ble Sd Justice Abhiaand l{umar Shauili)

¶20

\J7hen the maner is ralen up for hearing, it is noticed that

¶21

the petitioner has retired from service on aftaining the age of superannuarion and no relief can be granted at this point of tlme

¶22

In view of the same, the rJfrit petition is closed. No cosrs.

¶23

Miscellaneous peririons, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶24

¶25

To,

¶26

//,RUE copy//^,.fft#Ele sEcftJd+bFFtcER

¶27

i, FmESis.:.fl,xx,.,im il:'J,S.' F& igtHf.L?:yf^rro *€f@ ",.i GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 110t2022

ORDER

WP.No.3790 of 2010

1H E S T,.1
a)
f
I
2[ t]E[]U
.. .1 .'" :,
..,,-:. ,:-

¶34

CLOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶35

WITHOUT COSTS

M. Narsimhulu, Medak Dist. v. the High Court of A.P. Hyd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Narsimhulu, Medak Dist. v. the High Court of A.P. Hyd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.Sreenivasa Rddy and 2 Ors. Vs Chief Secy. Govt of Ap. Hyd and 8 Ors.

B. Nageswara Rao, Vs Union of India, rep by its Secretary

A.P.S.R.T.C., Vs D.Srinivas

J.Ashok Kumar, Hyd. Vs Syed Walliullah, Hyd and 6 Others

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs J. Ramulu

The Govt of Ap., Health,Medical and Family Welfare Dept., and 2 Vs S.Puspaneela,Nalgonda District and 2 Others