Dismissed¶57

C.Sridhar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Mar 2025WP/47193/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissed as infructuous without costs; Telangana HC single judge (Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.), 11-03-2025. Promotion dispute (Deputy Director to Joint Director, SC Development Department) rendered moot on counsel's concession; no adjudication of Articles 14/16 equality claims, DPC/promotion process, charge memo G.O.Rt.No.385 dated 1-8-2017, or Inquiry Officer report dated 17-12-2018. Precedential value limited to procedural outcome; interim orders of 28-12-2018 not dealt with on merits.

What did the court decide?

On learned counsel for the petitioner submitting that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication and has become infructuous, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition as infructuous, with no costs. ¶38

C.Sridhar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶8

WBIT^{PETITION NO:} 47193 OF 2018

¶9

Between:

¶10

C.Sridhar, S/o, Sudershan, Aged 50 years, Working as Deputy Director, SC Development Department, Sahgareddy District, Telahgana Statir.

¶11

..,PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Scheduled Caste Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

2 The Director, Scheduled Castes Development Department, Telangana State, Damodaram Sanjeeva Samkshema Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

¶15

,..RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus a) declaring that action of the respondenls in not promoting the petitioner as Joint Director, S.W in the existingiavailable vacancies is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory violating Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia. b) declare that the respondents shall pass appropriate, orders on the report of lnquiry Officer daled .17 -12-2O 1 8 before making promotions to the post of Joint Director. c) Respondents shall not make any promotions to the post of Joint Director without taking any decision/ passing appropdate orders on the report of lnquiry officer, daledJ7-12-2l18, in pursuance of the charge memo issued to the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.385, dated.l-8-2017

¶17

IA : I OF 2018

¶18

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 respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Director, in the ensuing DPC, without reference to charge memo issued vide G.O.Rt.No.385, dl: 1-8-2817, pending disposal of the Writ Petition

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶20

¶21

Petition under section-151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it" High Cor.t may be pteased to direct tl,g ,.T!".ry9!ts to pass appropriate orders 6n the report of tnquiry Officer dated"17'12'2018 before making any promotions to ine post of Joint Director, sw pending disposal of the Writ petition^-

¶22

lA NO: 1 oF 2019

¶23

Between:

¶24

The State of Telanoana Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Scheduled Caste Deveropmeni oepartrfi eni, al",I"tri[iiivoJr]E'jo.

¶25

The Director. SchedulerJ Castes Development Department, Telangana State, Damodaranr Sanjeeva Samksh;;;-Bh;vri,'l,r-"=50'ii"x, Hyderabad.

¶26

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶27

AND

¶28

C.Sridhar, S/o Sudershan, Aged 50 years, Working as Deputy Director, SC Devetopmerrt Departmenr, Sa-ng"reda'y DiJiriiiJiji""ndri,.,I' st"t".

¶29

.,.RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶30

Petition under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited n support.gl 1ne q_e!1i9;i, ihiiigh'courr may be pteased to vacate the rnterim orders in w-p.No.47193 0f 201g, iateo 28 12.2.o1gand dismiss the Writ Petition as devoid of merits

¶31

Counsel for the^petitioner: SRl. SRINIVASA RAO MADIRA"JU

¶32

9911"_"1-rgIE^{RespondentNo.i: Gp FoRGENERAL} ADMlNtsrRAfloN DEPARTMENT

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Gp FOR SERVICES lll

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA qrRIT PETITION No.47193 of 2O18

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

When the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the ""< cause in the present writ petition does not surviv e for ( adjudication ald it has become infructuous.

¶38