IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 19766 of 2002 Between: 1. S. Jaya Babu Naik S/o. Rama Naik R/o. 403, Nitya Enclave Srinagar Colony Hyderabad 2. B. Satish Kumar S/o. Rajeswara Rao R/o. F-535, Bombay Colony KTPS, New Paloncha Khammam District ..... PETITIONERS AND Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director Vidyut Soudha Khairatabad, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT 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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondent in not considering the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the Respondent to appoint the petitioners in the vacant posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in Respondent Corporation and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.G.K.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM(SC FOR AP GENCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not considering the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent to appoint the petitioners in the vacant posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in respondent Corporation. This Court on 08-10-2002 issued Rule nisi and granted interim direction as prayed for on 31-10-2002. During the pendency of the writ petition, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent made a letter dated 26-07- 2008 stating that the respondent/APGENCO after considering the cases of the petitioners issued orders appointing the petitioners and accordingly they were absorbed. Therefore, no further orders are required to be passed, since the subject matter of the petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, recording the submission made by the learned standing counsel the writ petition is closed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 31-07-2008 LSK