IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 21772 of 2008 Between: Keerthi Info Tech, Sponsored by Keerthi Educational Society, V.T. Colony, Nalgonda, Rep. by its President, M. Narsaiah S/o. Venkaiah, aged 45 yrs, Business R/o. V.T. Colony, Nalgonda, Town & District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh of Youth Services, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Andhra Pradesh Society for Training Employment Promotion , (A.P.S.T.E.P) Rep. by its Commissioner of Youth Services, Boats Club, Secunderabad. 3 The District Collector, Nalgonda, (Chairman, S.T.E.P.) 4 The Chief Executive Officer, S.T.E.P. Nalgonda. .....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 order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 herein in passing an order rejecting the application of the petitioner for APSTEP-Skill Development Training Programme - 2008-09 by Letter No. 130/APSTEP/Trg/08-09 dt. 23-5-2008 as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Art. 14 & 16 of The Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.M.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 21772 of 2008 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the second respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner for APSTEP-Skill Development Training Programme 2008-2009 is arbitrary and illegal. As could be seen, the petitioner’s application was rejected by letter dated 23-05-2008. Though various grounds have been raised questioning the impugned action and a counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents opposing the writ petition, it is to be noted that the training programme was only for the year 2008-2009 and the same came to an end long back. Hence, the matter does not deserve adjudication on merits at this point of time. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 10-06-2009 KLP