The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the denial of promotion to Senior Assistant without the account test. The petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant after the petition was filed, rendering the matter infructuous.
The writ petition is disposed of 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.
[3383 ]
l l ,l
I
H,GH COURT FOR THE S] r.d ;i 6"'.5, 35 l5,Tj:".,fli A r HyD ERA BA D
WEDf{ESDAY, THE rwo i, ir u inirB"^Lr#r?[^Bi HXE g" uo
PRESENT
TH E HONOURABLE SRI JUSTCE LAXMI NARAYA
WRIT PETITI ON NO: 24 642 OF 2017
Between:
NA ALISHETTY
,,BiBit9?Bf.:,Ri;:,?,iiilxi.;,fl?:H"il",:1 ffi fl ht,4ip'l",of
AND
...WRIT PETITIONER
I;lTgB:iRii?,.0".,3n"ji].:;::!fl :.;33il38,3&.10,
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particurarly one in rhe nature of writ of Mandamus: decraring the action of the respondent No.3 in not considering petitioner's representations for promotion as senior Assistant despite due quarifications except for account test part , and thereby denying rightfur craim of petitioner promotion for the post of senior Assistant though he -t+. crossed the age of 52 years as illegal, arbitrary and violative ot artictes ,U,'r, .rO 1n",", constitution of lrdia and consequenfly to direct the 3rd respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant exempting him from passing the account test.
l.A. NO:1 OF 2017(WPMP. N O: 30513 OF 20171
Petition under section 1 s 1 cpc prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to promote the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assislant exempting him from passing the account test in the promotional proceedings caused vide proceedings in SP.O.O.CGM (HRD) Ms.No. 330 dt: 23.6.20i 7.
Counsel for the petitioner: SR! KIRAN PALAKURTHT
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO
Counset for the Respondent No.4: SRt D.BALAK,S,AN RAO, SC FOR TS'SC The Court made the following: ORDER
I i I
I
I I
!
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXUI NARAYANA ALISIIET?T
TP
ON No.24642oF 2077
ORDER:
When the matter is taken up for hearing, Ieamed Standing Counsel for TS TRANSCO appearin g for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 represented that subsequent to the filing of writ petition, the petitioner has been promoted as Senior Assistant along with other eligible employees uide proceedings Memo No. sE/oPlNLG/polJAo/ADM /U2 /DNo.t2Tt / tT, Dt. so.7t.2otz, wherein the name of the petitioner is mentioned at SI. No.4 and that since then the petitioner has been discharging duties as Senior Assistant. Therefore, the cause in tfre writ petition does not survive
Miscellaneouspetitions' if any' penclingin this writ petition,shall stand closed' r,o,;t8Ti:rfi$!3,8+I[X st"i'#*oFFlcER r,,RuEcoPYl/
1g!fi[* ilm,$$$ru+i&#;'l " BSR ser.,'-
HIGHCOURT
DATED:0811112023
ORDER
WP.No.24642 of2017
gIATE 9A
{
9
. .\q )<br>q .,r.', tJ.,
:) t
o t
(
* r r(oil
-t,
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION
AS INFRUCTUOUS,
WTHOUT COSTS
tY\ -//
?<br>
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition seeking promotion exemption survives given the employee's subsequent promotion.
Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the reliefs sought have already been granted.
Na Alisshetty
T. S. TRANSCO
Member Engineer, TSCC
Telangana Chairman, Telangana State Public Service Commission
Laxmi Narayana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
