IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13424 of 2008 Between: Katta Kesavananda Bharathi D/o.K.SAtyanarayana Being minor rep. by her father Katta Satyanarayana S/o. late Venkateswara Rao, Aged 45 years, Advocate, C/o. Balla Venkata Rao, Badeti Vari Veedhi, Power Peta, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies Beside Telephone Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chancellor and Chairman. 2 The Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies Beside Telephone Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Dean. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Higher Education Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Information Technology and Communications Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner for admission into the IIITs, in Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies under B.C.(D) category violating the norms of Reservation Policy, even though she secured more marks in the qualifying examination, i.e., S.S.C. Public examination, than some of the selected candidates, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the guidelines issued by the 1st respondent and consequently direct the respondents to select the petitioner for admission into the Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.V.L.MURHTY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : O R D E R : When writ petition came up for hearing on 27.08.2008 there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, it was directed to be listed after three weeks. Even on this day when the matter came up for consideration, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner indicates that she is not interested in pursuing this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date: 17th September, 2008. cs ..... ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}