IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.24002 of 2007 Between: 1 Dr. V. Srinivas, S/o. Sudhakar Rao, R/o. H.No. 1-2-48/1/30, Domalaguda, Hyderabad-29. 2 Dr. Joshi Santhosh KUmar, S/o. Barat Bhushan, R/o. H.No. 7-45, Gandhari (V&M), Nizamabad District -503114. 3 K.R.L. Sarma, S/o. K.V.S. Sarma, R/o. Plot No. 50, S.P. Nagar, Moula Ali, Hyderabad. 4 G. Surya Prasad, S/o. Thukram, R/o. 2-75, Lalgadi Malakpet Village, Shmairpet (M), Ranga Reddy District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner & Director of Collegiate Education, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 Thiruma Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, Rep. byits Executive Director, 3 S.V.V.V.S. College, No. 170, Old Airport Road, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad, Rep. by its Principal. ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction, one in the nature of Writ of mandamus i) declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not renewing the contract of the petitioners as lecturers for the academic year 2007-08 by entering into a fresh agreement as per the Procs. Rc.No. 277/Ser.II-2/2007, dt. 3-8-2007, as arbitrary illegal, violative of Principles of natural justice and violative of Art. 14, 21 of Constitution of India ii) a direction may be issued to the respondents to renew the contract of the petitioners as lecturers by entering into a fresh agreement with effect from 8-8-2007 to 15-3-2008 iii) Costs be awarded and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.B.MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.24002 of 2007 ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Writ Petition has become infructuous on account of subsequent developments. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 9th July 2008 RRB