IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No : 22749 of 2006 Between: M.Srinivasa Rao and others. ..... Petitioners. AND The Govt.of A.P., Rep by its Secretary, Housing (RH-1) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. .....Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No : 22749 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioners, In-charge Assistant Engineers in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, challenge G.O.Rt.No.231, Housing (RH-1) Department, dated 24.8.2006 whereby the Government confirmed its earlier orders deleting condition No.6 in G.O.Rt No.114, Housing (RH-1) Department, dated 19.4.1999, relating to continuance of In-charge Assistant Engineers in the Corporation till they came up for consideration for appointment in the resultant vacancies in the posts of Assistant Engineers. This Court, by order dated 13.12.2006, granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned G.O, including the reversion of the petitioners from the posts of In-charge Assistant Engineers. While so, Sri K.Mohan Rami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation produced proceedings No.A4/5156/2008 dated 11.6.2008 relating to the promotions effected by the Corporation to the posts of Assistant Engineers. The Annexure attached to the said proceedings details the names of the candidates so promoted and the name of K.V.Surya Rao, the second petitioner, finds mention in the said Annexure at Serial No.5. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the first petitioner was already promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer earlier. In so far as the third petitioner is concerned, he was promoted as an Assistant Engineer under proceedings No.A4/6039/2008-III dated 18.7.2008 and is stated to have retired from service in June-2010. In the light of the aforestated developments, it is clear that the cause does not survive for adjudication in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Date: 27.10.2010 mrb