APHC010793032018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 38316/2018 Between: 1. DUNGA RATNA PRADEEP, S/O. RAJAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC-SERVICE RESIDENT OF H.NO. 2-340/37, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, KOLA SUBBA RAO STREET, UNDAVALLI VILLAGE, TADEPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TELECOM DEPARTMENT. 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, (PERS II) BSNL CORPORATE OFFICE, PERSONNEL II SECTION 4TH FLOOR, BHARAT SANCHAR BHAVAN, JANPATH, NEW DELHI - 110001. 3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN TELECOM REGION, 11 LINK ROAD, GANAPATHY COLONY, GUINDY, CHENNAI. 4. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN TELECOM REGION, 5-9-25, 9TH FLOOR, BSNL BHAVAN, HILL FORT ROAD, ADARSHNAGAR, HYDERABAD ...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 an appropriate Writ, order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in 2 VS,J W.P.No.38316 of 2018 not considering the request of the Petitioner for consideration of promotion from JTO(T) to SDE under Competitive quota on the basis of LDCE held on 04-03-2012, though he is eligible for the promotion is being illegal, arbitrary, unilateral, unjust and in violation of the principles of natural justice, while consequently to direct the Respondents herein to consider and dispose the request made by the Petitioner on dated 02-06-2017 with in a stipulated time of three months and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ALMAS BEGUM MOHAMMED Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 2. P SARADA The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.38316 of 2018 ORDER: When the writ petition came up for hearing on 17.06.2026, there was no representation on behalf of counsel for the petitioner, as such, the matter was directed to be posted to 20.07.2026. Even on 20.07.2026, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was posted to 27.07.2026, under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Today, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there was no representation on behalf of counsel for the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner is not evincing any interest in pursuing the matter. In view of the same, this writ petition is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 27.07.2026 Gss