Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15952 (AP)

C.RAMA RAO, AUTONAGAR GATE, PATAMATA,VIJAYAWADA-7 v. THE APSRTC., REP.BY ITS MD., MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD & 4 OTHE

WP/17885/2007 · 2025-08-31

Ravi Cheemalapati

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010206452007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 17885/2007 Between: 1. C.RAMA RAO, AUTONAGAR GATE, PATAMATA,VIJAYAWADA-7, S/O.LATE DHANAIAH PERSONNEL OFFICER, E.NO.42607 R/O.H.NO.74- 13/1-11, NEW RTC COLONY OPP:AUTONAGAR GATE, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA-7 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE APSRTC REP BY ITS MD MUSHEERABAD HYDERABAD 4 OTHE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD,HYDERABAD 2. AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REP BY ITS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMN), MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD 3. SRI P APPANNA, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER DEPUTY CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER, E.NO.106351 APSRTC, NELLORE 4. G ANJANEYULU, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER DEPUTY CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER (RECT) E.NO.113610,APSRTC, MD OFFICE, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD 5. B PANDURANGA RAO, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER DEPUTY CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER E.NO.113804, APSRTC, VIJAYAWADA ...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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring that the action of Respondent Corporation in not considering petitioner`s case for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Personnel Manager as illegal, unjust contrary to law arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 22923 OF 2007 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 respondent Corporation to consider case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Personnel manager, as per the Recruitment Regulations forthwith pending disposal of the Writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2007(WPMP 24008 OF 2007 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 implead the 6th Respondent herein as 6th Respondent in main Writ Petition. IA NO: 3 OF 2007(WPMP 24702 OF 2007 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 permit the petitioner to amend the prayer in the main writ petition by incorporating 'the proceedings No.EA/255(64)/2007/PD dated 20th August, 2007 issued by the respondent corporation as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, contrary to the recruitment regulations and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. IA NO: 4 OF 2007(WPMP 24703 OF 2007 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 proceedings No.EA/255(64)/2007PD dated 20th August 2007 issued by the respondent corporation pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Otherwise the petitioner would suffer serious hardship and irreparable loss. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following order: Sri E.V.Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner is not in touch and could not get instructions from him. 2. The matter is of the year 2007. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petitioner is not in touch with him shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. 3. In view of the above, this Writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. If at all the petitioner feels that cause in this writ petition survives, he can move an appropriate application within two(02) months. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS