IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23343 of 2008 Between: S.Raju S/o.Abraham R/o.H.No.16-2-839/1, Bakarbagh, Saidabad, Hyderabad-59. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of School Education, Government of A.P. Hyderabad. 3 State of A.P. rep. by its Chief Secretary, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5 Joint Action Committee of Teachers Organisations, A.P. Represented by its Screening Committee C/o. Progressive Recognised Teachers Union, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. 6 The Progressive Recognised Teachers Union Narayanaguda, rep. by its President. 7 United Teachers Federation, rep. by its President, Chinnapati Bhavan, Domalguda, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the ongoing strike by the 5th respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, violating Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Capt. Harishuppal Vs. Union of India and another which was reported in 2003 (2) SCC 45 and also in case of T.K. Rangarajan Vs. Government of Tamilnadu reported in 2003(6) SCC 581 and issue consequential directions restraining the 5th respondent from continuing the strike and issue further directions to resume to their duties forthwith and further direct the respondents 1 and 4 to forthwith appoint a high level Committee to examine and consider the demands of the 5th respondent Association and submit a report and take action as per such report and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This is a public interest litigation wherein it has been prayed by the petitioner that the members of respondent No.5 should be prevented from going on strike. In view of the development taken place and more particularly in view of the averments made in para 5 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1-Principal Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, the grievance ventilated in the petition would not survive, as the concerned Teachers will have to take extra classes so as to complete the course of the students. In view of the above development, the grievance ventilated in the petition would not survive and, therefore, the learned Advocate for the petitioner does not press the petition. The petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ___________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th December, 2008. GRR