IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.20778 of 2007 Between: 1 A.Rami Reddy S/o.Bangaru Reddy Paloncha, AP Genco Ltd., Khammam District 2 D.Veeraswamy S/o.Venkataiah Khammam District 3 G.Rama Rao S/o.Raghavulu Paloncha, AP Genco Ltd Khammam District 4 B.Ratnam S/o.Isac KTPS-A, Paloncha AP Genco Ltd., Khammam District 5 G.Pichaiah S/o.Nagaiah Boiler Maintenance-III Paloncha , AP Genco Ltd., Khammam District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Power Generation, Corporation Limited, Vidyut soudha, Somajiguda,Hyderabad-82 rep.by its Managing Director 2 The Chief General Manager (HR), AP Genco Ltd., Vidyut soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-82 3 The Chief Engineer (O&M), KTPS, Paloncha, Khammam 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 may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners’ cases for promotion to the posts of Foreman Grade-I, on par with their juniors under unqualiﬁed ﬁtters quota, as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14,16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to promote the petitioners as Foreman Grade-I on par with his juniors. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM(SC FOR AP GENCO) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.20778 OF 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Foreman Grade-I on par with their juniors, under unqualified Fitters quota. There is no necessity of going into all the details. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, during the pendency of the writ petition, respondents have considered the case of the petitioners and issued proceedings rejecting their case for promotion to the post of Foreman Grade-I. In view of the above, nothing survives in this writ petition for further adjudication and the same is liable to be closed. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed, leaving liberty to the petitioners to workout their remedies as available under law. No order as to costs. _________​__________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 15th September, 2008. IBL