IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 284 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 03/08/2007 in WP NO : 859 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The A.P.S.P.D.C.Limited, rep. by its Chairman, Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Movva Lakshminarayana S/o.Satyanarayana, R/o.D.No.6/475, Kojjilipt, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 K.V.V.Nageswara Rao, S/o.Nancharaiah, R/o.D.No.14/98, Edepalli, Machlipatnam, Krishna District. 3 The A.P.S.P.D.C.Limited, rep. by its Chairman, Managing Director, Tirupati 4 The Chief General Manager (HRD), APSPDCL, Tirupati, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : MR.G.TUHIN KUMAR The Court made the following : JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R.Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 3rd August 2007 passed in writ petition No.859 of 2007, this appeal has been filed by original respondent No.3. By virtue of the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, case of respondent No.1, who had applied for appointment to the post of Contract Junior Lineman, was to be considered and he was to be appointed to the post of Contract Junior Lineman if he was otherwise qualified and eligible for being appointed as such. It has been brought to our notice that after the impugned order was passed, the case of respondent No.1 was considered, but by an order dated 15th October 2007, he was informed that it was not possible to give him appointment for the reason that he had not submitted his application before 5 pm on 14th November 2006. It is pertinent to note here that all persons who were aspiring to be appointed as Contract Junior Lineman, were supposed to submit their applications to the concerned authority by 14th November 2006 before 5 pm, and it is an admitted fact that respondent No.1 did not submit his application before 5 pm on 14th November 2006. We had put a question to the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1 whether respondent No.1 had submitted his application on or before 5 pm of 14th November 2006. The learned advocate has fairly submitted that no application was given by respondent No.1 within the time prescribed. Thus, it is not in dispute that respondent No.1 had not submitted his application within the period prescribed. As stated hereinabove, the case of respondent No.1 had been duly considered as directed in writ petition No.859 of 2007, but for the reasons recorded in the order dated 15th October 2007, he was not found eligible, and, therefore, he had not been offered employment as a Contract Junior Lineman. In view of the above fact, even the order passed by the learned single Judge has been complied with. In view of the above development in the matter, in our opinion, this appeal has become infructuous, and, therefore, it is disposed of as such. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 17th December 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr