IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO : 32229 of 1998 Between: K. Satyanarayana, S/o K. Ramulu, Sri Venkateswara College, SURYAPET, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad - 01 2 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Secreatary, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 Sri Venkateswara College, Rep. by Secretary & Correspondent, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. .....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 or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Mandamus: (i) declare that the impugned proceedings L.Dis.No.2154/PC III-3/98 dt: 3-11-1998 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and offending Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India; (ii) declare that the petitioner is eligible and entitled for absorption into aided vacancy from the date from which he is working on regular basis in the 3rd respondent College, with all consequential benifits such as salary and other emoluments and all attendant benifits; and (iii) to grant other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : The Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari W.P. No. 32229 of 1998 O R D E R: In view of the demise of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V. Jogayya Sarma and his son Sri V. Venkata Rao, notice was ordered to the petitioner. The report dated 8.1.2008 received from the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet goes to show that the notice was served on the petitioner by the Process Server on 2.1.2008. But when the case is called, none appeared nor there is any representation on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed for default. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. Date: 15-02-2008. MVB.