APHC010125512003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 13077/2003 Between: 1. P. JOJI REDDY, S/O. RAYAPA REDDY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, ST. THERESAS HIGH SCHOOL, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR SCHOOL EDUCATION GUNTUR DIST, SCHOOL EDUCATION, GUNTUR REGION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. THE CORRESPONDENT, ST. THERESAS HIGH SCHOOL, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. K V KRISHNA REDDY, SCHOOL ASSISTANT, ST. THERESAS HIGH SCHOOL, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue order or direction or Writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 3rd Respondent in promoting the petitioner as head master in pursuance to the proceedings in RC.No. 4357/A3/2000, dated 13-12-2002 of the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and to issue a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to promote the petitioner as head master in pursuance of the proceedings in RC.No. 4357/A3/2000, dated 13-12-2002 of the 1st Respondent forthwith and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2003(WPMP 16239 OF 2003 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 3rd Respondent ot promote the petitioner as head master in pursuance of the proceedings in RC.No. 4357/A3/2000, dated 13-12-2002 of the 1st Respondent forthwith and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SOMDEV RAO MADALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K N VIJAYA LAXMI 2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORDER Despite listing the matter under the caption “for dismissal”, there is no representation for the petitioner. This shows that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the matter. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR