IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26816 of 2005 Between: 1 Sultan-Ul-Uloom Education Society, Regd. No.358 of 1980, Mount Pleasant, 8-2-249 to 267, road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, rep. by its Honorary Secretary. 2 Gulam Ahmed College of Education, REgd. No.358 of 1980, Mount Pleasant, 8-2-249 to 267, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, rep. by its Principal. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of A.P., School Ecucation Dept., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The State Council of Educational REsearch and Traning, BAsheerbagh, Hyderabd, rep. by its Director. 3 The Nationala Council for Teacher Education, rep. by its Member Secretary, Indira Gandhi, Indoor Stadium, Indra Prastha Estate, New Delhi. 4 The National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Region, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Jala Halli Bangalaore, Karnataka. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in not permitting the 2nd petitioner to run D.Ed. Course in English medium pursuant to the permission accorded by the 3rd respondent in F.SRC/NCTE/DED/2005-06/2625, dt. 26.08.2005 and order of the 2nd respondent in proceedings Rc.No.750/D3/SCERT/2005, dt. 03.10.2005, rejecting the proposals submitted for approval of staff list, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.47, School Education Department dt. 28.02.2005, apart from being violative of the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and the Regulations, violative of the fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 30 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 o approve the staff list submitted by the 2nd petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.C.V.R.RUDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER: Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:25th June, 2009. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}