IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20352 of 1999 Between: S.Mahaboob Basha E.56556, Conductor, S/o S.A.Basha Mohiddin (Late), R/o Cuddapah. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 3 Sri P.Krishnudu, E.65191, A.P.S.R.T.C., Cuddapah Depot, C/o Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Cuddapah Depot, Cuddapah District. (Dismissed for default as per court order dt:13/3/2003) 4 Sri B.Nageshwaraiah, E.56724, A.P.S.R.T.C., Cuddapah Depot, C/o. Depot Manager, Cuddapah Depot, Cuddapah District. (Dismissed for default as per court order dt:13/3/2003). 5 Sri U.M.Swamy, E.56725, A.P.S.R.T.C., Proddutur Depot, C/o Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Proddutur Depot, Cuddapah 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 order or direction more particularly one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in proceedings No.Dy.S(P)/E-4/402(103)/94-RM'C' dt:11/11/98 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his seniority since from the date of appointment i.e., 4/8/1975 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Regulation '3' if Service Regulations and liable to be set aside and consequently direct the respondents to reckon the seniority of the petitioner from the date of appointment i.e., 4/8/1975 on par with Respondents No.3 to 5 and direct the respondents No.2 to release the consequential benefits to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.A.K.MYNODDIN (Not present) Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.20352 of 1999 ORDER: As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 26.08.2008, the writ petition was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today, when the matter is taken up, none appears for the petitioner and there is no representation. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY 27th August, 2008 IBL