IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 4740 of 2000 Between: K.Kistaiah S/o. K.Balaram, E.38569 R/o. 18-34/97, RTC Colony, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn. rep by its Managaing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 Sri V.Sreenivasa Rao, E.71321 S/o. Not Known APSRTC, Chirala Depot, Guntur District. 3 Sri SK Moinuddin, S/o. Not Known APSRTC, Bhanswada Depot, 4 Sri K.Ramakrishna S/o. Not Known Office of Regional Manager Office APSRTC, Nalgonda. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to call for the records from the 1st Rspondent and issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the 1st respondent in not considering case of the petitioner for promoting to the post if Mechannical Chargeman with effect from 16.5.1983, consequent promoting to the post of Asst>Mechanical Foreman with effect from 1986 and not considering his case for further promotion to the post of Mechanical Foreman as illegal, unjust contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14,16 & 21 of the constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.HARINATH The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring respondent No.1 in not considering the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Mechanical Chargeman w.e.f 16.05.1983 consequent promotion to the post of Assistant Mechanical Foreman with effect from 1986 and not considering the case of the petitioner for further promotion to the post of Mechanical Foreman as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no instructions in the matter. 3. In the light of the said submission, this court is of the view that this writ petition has become infructuous. 4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Dated June 16, 2009 KSH