IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.10687 of 1998 Between: KXM John S/o late KL Xavier, Director, Jawaharlal Nehru Institute for Development Banking, Gachi Bowli, Hyderabad-19 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Board of Directors, rep. by its Chairman, Industrial Development Bank of India, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-5 2 V.P. Singh, Executive Director (Officiating), Industrial Development Bank of India, Head Office, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-5 .....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 a direction, writ or order, one in the nature of mandamus a) declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 in not considering the petitioner's case for promotion as Executive Director in Respondent No.1 Bank while consider the case of the Respondent No.2 who is less meritorious candidate than the petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner is not having 2 years of service left to discharge the duties as Executive Director even though there is no statutory rule stipulating the said period while considering other candidates who have less than 2 years of service for promotion is arbitrary, illegal, discriminative and malafide; b) directing the Respondent No.1 to consider the Petitioner's case and promote him as Executive Director from the date when the Respondent No.2 had been promoted by reverting him or any other post as Executive Director from that date; c) granting all consequential benefits like seniority, arrears of pay etc; d) awarding costs; or any other orders appropriate in the case may be passed.. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BHASKARA RAO NARAM (not present) Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.S.RAJU The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.10687 OF 1998 ORDER: When the matter was called on 03.03.2008, none appeared for the petitioner nor there was any representation on his behalf. Hence, the matter was directed to be posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today, when the matter is called, none appeared for the petitioner nor there is any representation on his behalf. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed for default. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 10th March, 2008. IBL To 1. Two CCS to 2. Two CD copies