IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5375 of 2009 Between: Padala Shankar Rao S/o. Narasimha Rao Dist. Coop. Central Bank Ltd., Rangampeta Branch, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Coop. Central Bank Ltd. Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer Nagamallithota, Kakinada, E.G. Dist. 2 The Deputy General Manager The District Coop. Central Bank Ltd. Nagamallithota, Kakinada, E.G. Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MS.TRIVENI REDDY FOR MR.A.SURYA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.SRINIVAS BASAVA FOR MR.S.SRINIVAS REDDY The Court made the following: O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not correcting clerical error of the date of birth of the petitioner as 10-03-1953 instead of 10-03-1951, and to set aside notice dated 27-02-2009 of respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner is proposed to be retired on 31-03-2009, as illegal and arbitrary. On 17-03-2009, this Court, while ordering notice before admission, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 09-03-2009 and pass appropriate orders. At the hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondents that in compliance with the above direction, the respondents passed order on 25-03-2009, rejecting the petitioner’s request for correction of date of birth and consequently the petitioner was made to retire. It is further submitted that questioning the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6711 of 2009, which is admitted and pending in this Court. As the petitioner’s request for correction of date of birth was rejected by the respondents and the said rejection order being the subject matter of a fresh writ petition filed during the pendency of this writ petition, the cause in this writ petition does not survive for consideration. The petitioner is entitled to raise all the legally permissible grounds, including those which are raised in the present writ petition, in the latter writ petition, which is pending in this Court. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 15th April, 2009 vrn