IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16948 of 2004 Between: Allivia U.P School, Chithal, Warangal district rep by Secretary and Correspondent M. Mallesham S/o Veeraiah ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Saifabad, Hyderabad 3 the Chairman, High Lever Committee rep by Commissioner and Director of School Education, A.P. Saifabad, Hyderabad 4 The District Educational Officer, Warrangal District, Warrantal .....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 a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in insisting approval of appointment posts in unaided posts of the petitioner school, despite of resolutions of high level committee which was cited as 2nd reference in G.O. Ms. No. 365, dt 10-10-1994 and in not placing the petitioner school posts before High level committee, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of constitutional provisions and the same also contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 365, dt 10-10-1994 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent without insisting the approval of appointment of posts of place the same before the high Level committee by taking into consideration of G.O.Ms. No. 365 dt 10-10-1994 by considering the representation dt 10-02-2004 of the petitioner school. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.GOVATHOTI BHASKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : O R D E R : When this writ petition came up for hearing on 23.06.2009, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, it was directed to be listed on 26.06.2009 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Despite the matter being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’ on this day, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It indicates that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:26th June, 2009. cs ..... ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}