APHC010276662007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.4381 OF 2007 Between: 1. The Transport Commissioner, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and others. ...Petitioners AND Sri Bhima Rao, Asst. Motor Vehicles Inspector, Bhimavaram, East Godavari District. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners : G.P. for Services – II Counsel for the Respondent : ----- The Court made the following ORDER: (per Hon’ble NJS,J) The writ petition is filed by the State against the orders dated 29.9.2006 in O.A. No.2745 of 2006 on the file of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. 2. The respondent herein filed the said O.A., for a direction to include his name in the panel of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors fit for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector, after declaring the Memo dated 02.2.2005 issued by the respondent No.1 therein as arbitrary, illegal etc. Through the impugned order, the learned Tribunal, following its earlier order dated 26.9.2006 in O.A. No.309 of 2005, set 2 WP_4905_2007 aside the Memo dated 02.2.2005 and directed the official respondents to consider the case of the respondent/applicant for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector against the available roster point for the panel year 2004–’05, if he is otherwise eligible and suitable and comes within the zone of consideration. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Tribunal allowed O.A. No.309 of 2005 by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K.Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab1. 3. Though the present writ petition, assailing the said order, was filed in the year 2007, no interim orders were granted suspending the orders passed by the learned Tribunal. Considering the said aspect coupled with afflux of time, this Court is not inclined to examine the matter on merits. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J _____________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J October 13, 2025 vasu 1 (1995) 2 SCC 745