IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO. 7350 of 1999 Between: 1 Ch.V.N.Suryanarayana Murthy S/o late Nageswara Rao Branch Manager, Sri Visakha Grameena Bank, Tholapi Branch, Srikakulam District. 2 G. Tirupati Rao S/o late Aparna Branch Manager, Sri Visakha Grameena Bank, Kamchili Branch, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Sri Visakha Grameena Bank, Rep. by its Chairman, Srikakulam. 2 General Manager, Sri Visakha Grameena Bank Srikakuklam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring that the action of the respondents contained in Circular Staff No.54 dated 27-3-99 in not including the petitioners in the promotion panel as Scale-II officers, is arbitrary and discriminatory and direct the respondents to continue the petitioners as Scale-II officers with all consequential benefits and grant such other relief as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.7350 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not including the names of the petitioners in the panel of promotion as Scale-II Officers in the respondent Bank. According to the petitioners, though they were fully qualified and eligible for their names being included in the panel of promotion as Scale-II officers, as per the circular instructions dated 04.12.1997 issued by the respondent bank, their names were not included in the panel. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the 2nd petitioner has been promoted to the cadre of MMGS-II with effect from 03.11.1999 and, therefore, the cause in the writ petition does not survive insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned. Whereas, in case of the 1st petitioner, since a charge sheet was pending against him as on the date of consideration of his case for promotion, his case could not be considered for promotion, and he was subsequently imposed with a punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. It is also stated that the 1st petitioner could not come up for selection even in the subsequent selections and, ultimately, he retired from the service of the bank on attaining the age of superannuation. In view of the above, nothing survives in this writ petition for adjudication and the same is liable to be closed. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. However, if the 1st petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering his case in the subsequent selections, he is at liberty to workout his remedies as available under the law. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 11th March, 2008. IBL To 1. Two CCs to 2. Two CD Copies