IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 26925 of 1999 Between: M.Venkateswarlu, E.44855, S/o. (Late) Venkata Subbaiah, R/o. Nellore, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nellore Zone, Nellore District. 3 B.V.Krishnaiah, E.25175, A.P.S.R.T.C., Rapur Depot, Rapur, Nellore District. 4 K.Raghupathi, E.38831, A.P.S.R.T.C., Palamaneru Depot, Palamaneru, Chittoor District. 5 K.Tirupathaiah, E.43450, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kanigiri Depot, Kanigiri, Prakasam 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent herein in not regularising my Services from the date of my promotion as Dy.Superintendent (P) i.e. on 24-10-1994 and regularizing my services w.e.f. 14-12-1995 and rejecting my case vide Proc.No.E4/255(9)/94-ED/NLR, dt.29-3-98 and 25-2-99 as illegal, unjust, contrary to the instructions in circular No.PD-84/1988 dt.1-9-88, and as such liable to be set aside the consequential promotions made by the 2nd Respondent herein vide Proc.No.E4/255(1)/99-ED/NLR dt.24-6-99 is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to consider my case for promotion by treating my late of regularisation as 24-10-94 and to give effect for subsequent promotion forthwith in the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN (Not present) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.26925 of 1999 ORDER: When the matter was called for hearing on 04.06.2009, none appeared for the petitioner nor any representation was made on his behalf. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Today, when the matter was called for hearing, none appeared for the petitioner nor there was any representation on his behalf. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed for default. No costs. ____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 12-06-2009 Gsn.