IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 25272 of 1998 Between: 1.. Venkateswara Rao S/o. Narayana Rao, Gannavaram Depot, Vijayawada. 2. J. Ramachandra Rao S/o. J. Anjaraju, Gannavaram Depot, Vijayawada. 3. S. Venkateswara Rao S/o. S. Koteswara Rao, Gannavaram Depot, Vijayawada. 4. Abdul Azeem S/o. Abdul Usman, Gannavaram Depot, Vijayawada. 5. J.A.A. Paul S/o. J. Prahasham, Gannavaram Depot, Vijayawada. 6. Ch. Venkateswara Rao S/o. Ch. Saianna, Gannavaram Depot, Vijayawada. 7. K. Raja Rao S/o. K. Mohan Rao, Gannavaram Depot, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Vijayawada Region, Vijayawada. 2. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Gannavaram Depot, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: a) directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners as Casual Drivers Grade-II from the date of completion of 240 days from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits; b) to declare the action of the Respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioners to the post of Driver, Grade-II on completion of 240 days from the date of their initial appointment as illegal, arbitrary; and c) pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.W.B.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.25272 OF 1998 ORAL ORDER: This matter underwent as many as 12 adjournments as of now. When this case appeared in the list on 26th February 2008, none appeared for the petitioner and, hence, it was ordered to be posted under the caption ‘dismissal’ on 7th March 2008. After two adjournments, when this matter is called today, still there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, this Court is left with no other alternative except to dismiss the writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed for non- prosecution, but however, in the circumstances, without costs. -------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 19th March 2008 knk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SRAVAN}