Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30101 (AP)

R.V.SITA RAM PRASAD, KRISHNA DISTRICT & 3 OTHERS v. THE A.P.SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION CO.LTD., CHITTOOR & 3

WP/10591/2007 · 2025-01-21

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010433952007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 10591/2007 Between: R.v.sita Ram Prasad, Krishna District & 3 Others and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The A P Southern Power Distribution Co Ltd Chittoor 3 and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. N M KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G VIDYASAGAR 2. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 3. K UDAYA SRI The Court Made the Following Order:- This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “to issue a writ order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of writof mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing notification without giving 2 eligibility to the Diplomo Holders and further action of the respondents in not accepting the applications and in not considering the case of the petitioners for appointment to thepost of contract junior lineman alongwith others and not calling for the interview as highly illegal arbitrary and violative of Art 14 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment as Contract Lineman by giving preference alongwith others without rejecting on the ground of higher qualification in the existing vacancies and pass...” 2. Smt. Meena, learned counsel representing Sri N.M.Krishnaiah learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication and the Writ Petition has become infructuous. 3. Ms. K.Adarshitha, learned Junior Standing Counsel for APEPDCL appearing on behalf of the respondents is present. 4. Recording the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J 21.01.2025. ASR 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.10591 of 2007 21.01.2025 ASR