Dismissed

A. Suryanarayana, v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary to Government

Telangana HC7 Jul 2023WP/2381/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an amendment to service regulations seeking prospective application and interim direction for promotion dismissed as infructuous following counsel s admission that cause does not survive for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous with no costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

A. Suryanarayana, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^3304l

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 2381 oF 2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

A. Suryanarayana, S/o: Chenchaiah, aged about 51 years.

¶10

P. Ravi Kumar, S/o: Venkateswarlu, aged about 50 years,

¶11

Abdul Khuddus Hussaini, S/o S. Ghouse Mohiuddin Hussaini, aged about 50 years.

¶12

M. Ramesh Kumar, S/o: Sanjeeva Rao, aged about 50 years.

¶13

V. Ravi Kumar, S/o: Late Venkateswara Rao, aged about 49 years,

¶14

(All are.P"qrjy Executive Engineers working in A.P. State Police Housing Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad. )

¶15

...PETITIONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home (policeB) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶18

A.P. State Police Housing Corporation Ltd., D.G.P. Office Annexe, Saifabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

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 lssue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the amendment to Service Regulations No.4(ii) under Engineering Service at Sl.No.2, Column No.6 of A.P. State Police Housing Coporation Service Regulations in resolution under Minute No.3954 dated 14-122012 of the meeting of Board of Direclors of 2nd respondent Corporation communicated in Circular No.SGM/206th B.Ml2O12-13 dated 7-1-2013 is prospective in operation applicable to the employees who joined service after that date, viz.7-1-2O13 and consequently consider the case of the Petitioners for

¶21

promotion to the post of Executive Engineers as per the rures in vogue on 13.12.2012.

¶22

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013{WPMP. NO:2895 0F 2013)

¶23

Petition under Section^'1 5'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased direct the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the pefitioners for promotion to the post of Executive Englneers of the 2nd respondent corporation as per the Service rules in vogue on 13-12-2012, pending disposat of the above Writ Petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. K. SITA RAM

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR HOME

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRl.K. C. VENKATA REDDY (ScFoRAPSPH)

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

THE HOI'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO W.P.No.2381 of 2OL3

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

¶31

that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.

¶32

Recording the said submission, the writ petition is

¶33

dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

¶34

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if

¶35

any, shall stand closed.

¶36

SD/-C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUfl

¶41

One CC to Sri. K. Sita Ram, Advocate IOPUCI

¶42

One CC to Sri. K. C. Venkata Reddy^(SC FOR A P S P H) [OPUC]

¶43

Two CD Copies

TJ SW #

I i I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710712023

ORDER

/, 1i^ ?. 9IATE o,
,\n
(
'\ 1 l\lL ?sn
(j
<br>:/'

WP.No.2381 of 2013

DISMISSING THE WP

AS INFRUCTUOUS

WITHOUT COSTS.

v2
\ov
1v*

A. Suryanarayana, v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Suryanarayana, v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Masadi Linga Rao and 3 Others Vs Vardineni Narsinga Rao and 2 Others

V.Devi Vs Depot Manager

Smt R. Andalu, Vs S. Narsa Reddy

G. Limbadri swamy s/o. Gangaram, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

P.Ramesh Vs Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology

Ch. Anandam Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh