IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7063 of 1999 Between: K.Veera Raghavulu S/o. K.Subramanyam Balaji Institute of Surgery Rehabilitation and Research for the Disabled Tirupati, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Officer Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanama Kapilateestham Road, Tirupati. 2 The Director Balaji Institute of Surgery Rahabilitation and Research for the Disabled Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3 The Secretary to the Government Revenue and Endowments -I Dept. Secretariat, Hyderabad. R3 is impleaded as per court order dt.8/10/99 in WPMP 25867/99 .....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 order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the first Respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioner to create promotional avenue to him for the post of Physio Therapist and to promote him to the said post by relaxing the rules, and issuing the notification dt. 16/3/1999 bearing ROC.no. PR/4/5358/Advt- 27/99, dt. 15/3/1999 to fill the posts of Physio Therapist by direct recruitment is arbitrary, illegal, against the law and violation of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India consequently directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner from the post of Assistant Physio Therapist to the post of Physio Therapist by relaxing the rules in the existing vacancy with immediate effect and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.K.CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondents: 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 2. SRI A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: Since none appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 18.02.2008, the matter was directed to be posted under the caption “for dismissal”. Today, though the matter is listed under the caption “for dismissal”, neither is the counsel for the petitioner present nor is there any representation on his behalf. The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J) 22nd February, 2008 v v To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies