IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1142 OF 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 31/01/2006 in WP NO : 3067 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: V. Jagan Mohan Rao ... APPELLANT AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and six others ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Sri G.V. Shivaji Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 and 6: Smt. A. Savitha The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Heard the learned advocates. 2. We do not find any error committed by the learned single Judge while rejecting the petition. As the learned single Judge has given all relevant details with regard to the service record of the appellant – petitioner, we do not think it necessary to repeat the same. 3. At the hearing of this petition, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that it is possible for respondent No.5 – Corporation to accommodate the appellant – petitioner in any other suitable cadre, but the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.5 – Corporation has submitted that it is not possible to absorb the appellant – petitioner, especially, in view of the fact that about 48 emporiums run by the Corporation have been closed and number of persons have been relieved and in this set of circumstances, it is not possible to give any employment to the appellant. 4. For the aforesated reason also, it is not possible to accept the request of the appellant – petitioner to direct the respondent – Corporation to reconsider the matter with regard to his absorption. We see no reason to interfere with the just order passed by the learned single Judge. 5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, WAMP No. 2378 of 2009 filed by the appellant for interim relief is also dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th September, 2009 ks