IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 16385 of 2003 Between: M.Vijayamani W/o K.J.C.Patnaik Andhra Bank, M.R.College Branch., Vizianagaram Post and District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The General Manager (Personnel), Andhra Bank., Dr.Pattabhi Bhavan., Saifabad., Hyderabad. 2 The Zonal Manager., Andhra Bank., Zonal Office., Seethammadhara., Visakhapatnam. 3 The Asst.General Manager., Andhra Bank., Zonal Office., Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. .....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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for the post of Joint custodian cashier in totally mechanized branches in Visakhapatnam district pursuant to the Ntification No.690/3/9,1061 dated 19-6-2003 is highly arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner to the post of Joint custodian cashier in totally mechanized branch in Visakhapatnam treating the applicant as eligible and award all consequential benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for the post of Joint Custodian Cashier in totally mechanized branches in Visakhapatnam district pursuant to the notification Lr.No.690/3/G.47/1061, dated 19.06.2003 is highly arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner to the post of Joint Custodian Cashier. 2. When this matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the standing counsel for the respondent Dr.Lakshmi Narasimha that the petitioner’s case was considered and she was promoted as Joint Custodian Cashier and hence, this writ petition has become infructuous. 3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Dated June 12, 2009 KSH