IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 11566 of 1999 Between: P.Ranga Rao, S/o Late Anantha Ramaiah, Transport Corporation of A.P. Ltd., R/o Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Transmission Corporation of A.P.Ltd., (A.P. Viduth Soud Transco), Rep.by its Director Distribution and HRD, Hyderabad. 2 K.Gopalkrishna, M & T, O/o Chief Engineer (Operations), Viduth Soudha, Hyderabad. 3 Kum.J.V.Subbha Lakshmi, EME 400 KV Lines, O/o Chief Engineer (Operations), Viduth Soudha, Hyderabad. 4 Y.Satyanaryan Rao, Kotham Kudam Thermal Power Station, Kotham Kudam , Khammam District. 5 K. Ramulu, Vijayawada Thermal Power Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 6 P.V.V.Satyarayana, Vidthu Soudha, Hyderabad. .....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 order or direction or writ in the nature of declaring the promotion of the Respondents 2 to 6 herein being the admitted juniors to the petitioners in the category of Assistant Divisional Engineers to the category of Divisional Engineers by the First Respondent-corporation through their orders issued in T.O.O.(per-GM ) Rt No 13 dated 13.5.99 is illegal arbitrary a n d violative of the principles of natural justice and for consequential directions to promote the petitioner as Divisional Engineer by according him the rank above the Respondents 2 to 6 herein and pass such other4 or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.PRATAP REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 11566 OF 1999 ORDER: Since none appeared for the petitioner on 28.02.2008, the matter is posted today ‘for dismissal’. Today also neither the Counsel for the petitioner is present nor is there any representation on his behalf. The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. ____________________________ Date: 29.02.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MUK}