IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12702 of 2008 Between: G. Jyothi Latha D/o. G.Sai Babu R/o. Gandepalli Vill& Mandal, East Godavari district. Rep. by his natural Guardin & Father G. Suri Babu, Aged: 40 years ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Rajeev Gandhi University of Knowledge & Technologies, Adjacent to Telephone Bhavan Saifabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Dean. 2 Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, I.T.Dept, secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad 3 The Director of Higher Education, JNTU Campus, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 4 The District Educational Officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 5 Nandipati Sushma D/o. N.Ram Babu Gandepalli (V&M), East Godavari District, Rep. by his natural Guardian and father N.Ram Babu. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ , order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (a) Declare the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in denying selection to the petitioner for admission into IIIT course under OC Category for the academic year 2008-09 selected the respondnet No.5 as illegal, arbitary and violative of Art 14 of th eConstitution of India, and (b) Consequebtly direct the respondents no.1 to 4 allot seat to th epetitioenr for admission into IIIT course for th eacademic year 2008-09 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 12702 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. When the writ petition came up for consideration on 21-11- 2008 and on 28-11-2008, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption ‘ for dismissal’. Despite the matter being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It indicates that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing this writ petition. 2. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 12th December, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 12702 OF 2008 12th December, 2008.