High Court of Telangana dismissed as infructuous a writ petition challenging the promotion of Respondent 3 as Senior Assistant, noting the issue did not survive due to efflux of time.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous 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.
[33e3 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 22561 OF 2011
Between:
D. Laxma Reddy, Sio. Narsi Reddy, Hindu, aged 48 years, Occ : Junior Assistant, Hindu Office of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, IVliryalaguda, Nalgonda Districtr
.....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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the Procs. Dis. No. 3400120111A1 , dated 09-06-2011 promoting the 3rd respondent as Senior Assistant from the cadre of Junior Assistant is illegal, arbitrary, unco nstitutional and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.50 Law (LA and J-HOME-COURTSD) Department, dated 23-O4-2OO9 consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation, dated 17-06-2011 of the petitioner to promote him as Senior Assistant from the cadre of Junior Assistant as per the rules in force.
IA.NO:1OF 2011(WPll4P. NO: 27566 OF2011)
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 suspend the Procs. Dis. No. 34OO12O11tA1 , dated 9-6-2011 ofthe 2nd respondent promoting the 3rd respondent as Senior Assistant from the cadre of Junior Assistant otherwise the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and harm. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.VENKAT REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SR! K.V.SUBBA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2:SRl BATHULA RAJ KIRAN (SC FOR APHC)
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI C.DAMODAR REDDY
The Gourt made the following ORDER
THE HON'BLE THECHIEF JUSTICEALOKARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SIIRIJUSTICEANIL KUMARJUKANTI
WRIT PETITTO N No.22561of2011
ORDER.'(Per rheHon'blerhe Chie/JusticeAIokAradhe)
Mr. K. Venkat Reddy,learned counsel representing Mr' K.V. Subba Reddy,learned counselfor the petitioner submits that the issue involvedinthis petition does not survive for
considerationon account ofeffluxof time'
The writ petitionis therefore dismissedas infructuous'
Miscellaneouspetitions, pending if any, stand closed' There
shall be no order as tocosts.
\
//TRUECOPY// "153,3F[ft+Htr3'3iIXX \ V
SECTIONOFFICER
To
1 2 3 , EffiEE i: :l ili#l]ffiJp, $'"i'Hq?$ri'l{r",, ", 4 Two CDCoPies SA GJP
HIGH COURT
DATED:1211212023
ORDER
.1 srAlC
q v
11 JI\ 2[24 .tr
o .t
.A
*
t o
OESPnrcYl(
WP.No.22561 of 2011
DISIVflSSING THE W.P
AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS.
L
<br>
D. Laxma Reddy
P. Madhavi
Allok Aradhe
Anil Kumar Jukanti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
