IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26894 of 1999 Between: L.Mohanayya S/o.Lingaiah, O/o.the Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat. Hyderabad. 2 Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, Swami Ramananda Tirtha Grameena Bhavan, Erra Manzil, Hyderabad. 3 Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Swami Ramananda Tirtha Grameena Bhavan, Erra Manzil, Hyderabad. 4 Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, East Division, R.R.District. 5 G.Vijaya Bhushanam, Foreman, Region Rigs Workshop, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. .....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 issue an order, direction or appropriate Writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records leading to the issue of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.262, PR & RD Department dated:15.5.1995 of the first respondent and quash the same while setting aside the judgment of the Hon'ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal dated;28.11.1997 in O.A.No.3180/95 by holding illegal, arbitrary, unjustifed and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court and consequently direct the respondents not to fill up one post of Depurty Executive Engineer available in the Rigs Workshop, Panchayat Raj at Uppal by promoting the Foreman i.e. the 5th Respondent herein. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.GOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri V.Eswaraiah, J.) When the matter has been taken up for hearing on 18.6.2009, neither the petitioner nor his counsel were present and there was no representation on their behalf. Therefore, the matter was directed to be posted on 19.6.2009 under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Even today also, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’ neither the petitioner nor his counsel are present and there is no representation on their behalf. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed for default. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 19.6.2009 kpr