IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 588 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 7.12.2000 in WP NO : 10509 OF 1996 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Akula Veera Venkat Rao ..... APPELLANT AND The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Girijan Co-operative Corporation Ltd., East Point Colony, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.V.J.K.KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A.K. JAISWAL, SRI N. SRIDHAR REDDY & SRI VIVEKANANDA. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No:588 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by an order, dated 7.12.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.10509 of 1996. The appellant herein is the writ petitioner. He ﬁled the above writ petition seeking to declare the proceedings in RC.No.1270/95, AIC dated 15.4.1996 and also proceedings in RC.No.3043 of 90 AIC, dated 3.8.1999 of the respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and to issue a consequential direction to the respondent not to give eﬀect to the same and further direct the respondent herein to give suitable employment to the son of the petitioner in Girijan Co- operative Corporation Limited on compassionate grounds forthwith, on the ground that he retired from service of the respondent-Corporation opting voluntary retirement on medical invalidation and that a representation was made for appointment of his son in the corporation on compassionate grounds, but the Corporation rejected the same. The learned Single Judge having observed that the respondent-Corporation considered the request of the petitioner as per the provisions of Rule 9(b)(xii) of Voluntary Retirement Service Rules and accordingly and rejected the representation and therefore, the respondent cannot be compelled by issuing a mandamus to consider the request of the petitioner once again, dismissed the writ petition. Having aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the petitioner. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that while the writ petition was pending, the learned Single Judge directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner without reference to the resolution dated 9.10.1995 and that the respondent- corporation having considered the representation, rejected the same and the action of the respondent-corporation is in consonance with the provisions of Rule 9(b)(xii) of Voluntary Retirement Service Rules. Under the above circumstance, We feel that the order impugned herein needs no interference. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ____________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 21st July, 2008 Nn. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No:588 OF 2001 (JUDGMENT delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 21.7.2008