IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:15722 of 1999 Between: 1 A. Linga Reddy S/o.Thirupathi Reddy, R/o.Suryapet. 2 D. Raghuma Reddy S/o. Narsi Reddy, R/o.Suryapet. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 A.P. TRANSCO Rep.by its Superintending Engineer OPN. Circle, Nalgonda. 2 A.P. TRANSCO Rep.by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. 3 Md.Mansoor Ali, Son of And Aged Not Known To The Petitioner, R/o.Suryapet. 4 K. Bhadraiah, Son of Aged Not Known To The Petitioner, R/o. Suryapet. 5 S. Balakrishna S/o.Rajaiah, O/o.The Superintending Engineer, C.P. Discom. of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Nalgonda, R/o.6-8-327, Kameswar Rao Colony, Near Ravindra nagar, Nalgonda. 6 K. Nageswara Rao S/o. Ramaiah, O/o. The superintending Engineer, Electricity Revenue Office, A.P. Transco (CP Discom.of Andhra Pradesh Limited), Nalgonda, R/o.30, SSaivenkateswara Colony(Old), Nalgonda. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR. A.SANJEEVA REDDY FOR MR.A.SUDARSHAN REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: i) declaring the action of the respondents authorities in promoting the respondents No.3 and 4 to the post of Junior Accounts Officer as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the Article 14 of the prepared in Memo No.SE/OP/NIg/U2/D.No.2671/99, dt.13/01/99; ii) direct the respondent authorities to make promotions in accordance with the seniority list prepared in Memo No.SE/OP/NLG/Adm/U2/D.No.2671/99, dt.13/01/99; iii) direct the respondent authorities to place the petitioners above to the respondent No.3 and 4 in the seniority list of Junior Accounts Officer.” Sri A.Sanjeeva Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cause in the writ petition has become infructuous. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as such. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as infructuous, WVMP.Nos.3394 of 1999 and 1391 of 2000 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th DECEMBER, 2008. kvni