IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13643 of 2008 Between: Kum Dara Kapila D/o Dara Sreesailam being minor rep by her natural guardian and father Dara Sreesailam S/o Dara Rajaiah aged 40 years Occ: Advocate R/o H. No. 18-257/2, Dwarakapeta Road, Narsampeta Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Rajeev Gandhi University of knowledge, Technologies, rep by its Dean, besides Telephone Bhavan, Opp A.g. Office, saifabad, hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Warangal Warangal district. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, narsampet, Warangal District. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, Warangal District. 5 The District Educational Officer, Warangal, Warangal District. .....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 the action of the 1st respondent in not selecting the petitioner herein for the IIIT course though she secured highest marks in the S.S.C. and also grade points, as illegal, arbitrary contrary to the rules speciﬁed by the 1st respondent university and consequently direct the 1st respondent hereinto enquire into the matter pursuant to the representation dt 18-6-2008 and to admit the petitioner herein in the IIIT course in the 1st respondent, and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.RAJA MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : O R D E R : When the writ petition came up for hearing on 29.08.2008 there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, it was directed to be listed on 01.09.2008 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even on this day when the matter came up for consideration, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner indicates that she is not interested in pursuing this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date: 02nd September, 2008. cs ..... ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs 2. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}