Petitioner challenged exclusion from promotion due to pending disciplinary proceedings via writ petition under Article 226. Court held matter intractable and dismissed petition as infructuous.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous with no costs awarded.
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.
[33041
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 15731 OF 2018
Between:
R.Chaitanya, S/o R.Narasimha Ramulu, aged about 47 years, Occ ;Senior Assistant, O/o.The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare Warangal Zone, Hyderabad, R/o. Hyderabad.
.....PETITIONER
AND
...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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not consadering the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent in the ensuing DPC on the ground of pendency of Disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to consider the name of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent in the ensuing DPC without reference to the charge memo dated 6-12-2008 and promote him as Office Superintendant in the existing vacancies with all consequential benefits.
l.A.NO:'l OF 2018
Petition Und{)r Section 151 CPC praying that ax the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Higr Court may be pleased to direct the responderrts to consider the name of the Pe.itioner fcrgrromotion to the post of Office Superintendent in lhe ensuing DPC without re eren(:e to the charge memo dated 06-12- 2008 in the existing vacanciespending tlisposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri.D.Ramakrishna
Counsel for the Respondents : GP For Services- ll
The Court made the following Order:-
I {
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO.15731 OF 2018
ORDER:
Todal' rvhen the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, informed this Court that the subject matter ol the writ petition has become inlructuous.
dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
Pending .miscellaneous applications, if anv, shall
stand ciosed.
I
SD/. P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTA}IT REGISTRAR <-aO SECTION OFFICER
//TRUE COPY/I
To
SA
.4 GJP v
HIGH COURT
DATED:0810812023
A?6 ,c
1t.p
I
I SNA
r1
lcer)
<br>.orr_\t'\ r{-'.:=
ORDER
WP.No.15731 of 2018
DISMISSING'THE W.P
AS INFRUCTT'OUg WITHOUT COST:S.
%^o
R. Chaitanya
The State of Telangana
Namavarapu Rajeswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
