IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19692 of 1999 Between: G.V.Narayana Rao S/o G.Venkatramudu D.No. 5/95, M.G.Street, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri Venkateswara Grameena Bank, Sponsored by Indian Bank, Rep. by its Chairman, Holding office at Chittoor District. 2 D.Manohar Reddy, Inspector of Branches of Sri Venkateswara Grameena Bank Head Office at Chittoor District. 3 K.Ramesh, Accounts Department S.V.Grameena Bank Chittoor District. 4 T.Venkatrami Reddy S.V.Grameena Bank M.R. Palli, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 5 B.Redeppa Reddy S.V. Grameena Bank Head Office, Chittoor District. 6 B.N.Nageswara Rao S.V. Grameena Bank Nendragunta Branch, Chittoor District. (Dismissed for default as per Court Order Dt:13/03/2003 as against R.No.6.) .....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ order or direction preferably one in the Nature of Mandamus; a) declaring that the impugned proceedings in Circular No. 123/F.411/99, dated 26/8/1999 of the Respondent No.1 treating the Petitioner herein having been promoted from 29/1/1998 is illegal while showing the Respondent No.2 as having been promoted in the first slot among the persons who were shown to have been promoted with the effect from 28/4/1990 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Articles 14, 16, 16(4A) and 335 of the Constitution of India and the benefit of the order dated 30/05/1990 passed by the Respondent No.1; and b) pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.DORAI RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 19692 of 1999 O R D E R: It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject matter of the writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 19-08-2008 KLP